Yes, but that's not what you said. You said "the standards for storytelling and adaptation should be higher" for a movie than a game. I don't accept that premise.
Games like the Uncharted series, or the new Tomb Raider reboot, or the Mass Effect Trilogy, or the Dragon Age series, or the Oblivion/Skryrim series tell stories as well or better than movies. I don't accept that they should aim lower than a movie because movies are more mainstream. They need to exceed movies in order be taken as seriously. We have already seen this begin to happen with the major TV Series. Television was once considered to be completely inferior to Cinema. With The West Wing, The Sopranos, The Wire, Game of Thrones, that status quo has been challenged. Games should aim to do the same.
This game will be forgotten because it doesn't aim high enough. The Mass Effect Trilogy will not be forgotten, because it aimed higher and achieved more than most Movies.
Middle-earth [formerly LotR] in New Media
Better than movies, really? I'm a casual gamer now, but I've played my share of RPGs (and other genres) in the past and parts of some more recent hit games. I think only a few even reach the level of a decent summer action blockbuster, much a less truly great movie. Indiana Jones tells its story better than Uncharted from what I've played of it, and that's just picking the closest movie analog.Games like the Uncharted series, or the new Tomb Raider reboot, or the Mass Effect Trilogy, or the Dragon Age series, or the Oblivion/Skryrim series tell stories as well or better than movies. I don't accept that they should aim lower than a movie because movies are more mainstream. They need to exceed movies in order be taken as seriously. We have already seen this begin to happen with the major TV Series. Television was once considered to be completely inferior to Cinema. With The West Wing, The Sopranos, The Wire, Game of Thrones, that status quo has been challenged. Games should aim to do the same.
Games still have difficulty telling stories that are not violence-driven (as I think your list shows). Yes, there are adventure games, but they're marginal now and have their own limitations.
Last edited by kzer_za on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:34 am, edited 5 times in total.
-
Passdagas the Brown
- Posts: 3154
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm
I said that, and the other things. However, it's just my opinion. I can accept you not accepting it!Alatar wrote:Yes, but that's not what you said. You said "the standards for storytelling and adaptation should be higher" for a movie than a game. I don't accept that premise.
Games like the Uncharted series, or the new Tomb Raider reboot, or the Mass Effect Trilogy, or the Dragon Age series, or the Oblivion/Skryrim series tell stories as well or better than movies. I don't accept that they should aim lower than a movie because movies are more mainstream. They need to exceed movies in order be taken as seriously. We have already seen this begin to happen with the major TV Series. Television was once considered to be completely inferior to Cinema. With The West Wing, The Sopranos, The Wire, Game of Thrones, that status quo has been challenged. Games should aim to do the same.
This game will be forgotten because it doesn't aim high enough. The Mass Effect Trilogy will not be forgotten, because it aimed higher and achieved more than most Movies.
From my perspective, filmmakers should aim high. Game-makers should aim high as well, but I personally don't hold them to the same standard.
Films just mean more to me, that's all. I love LOTRO, Oblivion and Skyrim, and can get quite immersed in the complex and sometimes beautiful storylines (I love conversing with that dragon on the snowy mountain-top in Skyrim, for example), but I just don't get as agitated when a game developer gets something wrong as when a director does.
You can go ahead and use that derogatory term "casual gamer" if you like. I wear it like a badge of courage.
Having said that, I will applaud the trend of better story-telling in both television drama and games. Higher quality is higher quality, no matter where you find it.
The issue is that a game's first duty is to be a game. Many modern games, specially artsy indie ones, are increasingly blurring the line of what it means to be a "game", but we're all still agreement that it means interactivity. And interactivity means some of the power to the player which means taking some of it away from the storyteller. Taking power away from the storyteller almost always means weaker stories.
There are exceptions, and as time goes by more designers get better at finding ways to do this, but I do not believe it ever won't be an exception. And that's okay - because IMO it's more important for a game to be a game than to be a story. Mario hasn't remained king for 3 decades because of story and it would almost certainly weaken it as a game if someone at Nintendo decided they should try and compete with Pixar.
There are exceptions, and as time goes by more designers get better at finding ways to do this, but I do not believe it ever won't be an exception. And that's okay - because IMO it's more important for a game to be a game than to be a story. Mario hasn't remained king for 3 decades because of story and it would almost certainly weaken it as a game if someone at Nintendo decided they should try and compete with Pixar.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Answering all the above in no particular order.
Just for arguments sake, lets look at something like Uncharted. It's maybe 8 or 9 hours long. Of that, there's a good hour and a half of movie quality storytelling. Sure, in between there's running and gunning, puzzles, all the usual game stuff. But you can't affect the story. The story gets told exactly the same way each time. In this way its more like traditional cinema. Is it as good as an Indiana Jones movie? That's a matter of personal preference, but I'd say its certainly in the ballpark. Its not as good as Raiders, but its better than Angelina's Tomb Raider movies.
Then look at something like Mass Effect. Here you have the same story told several ways. The main storyline is still told, but the details differ. Characters die according to your decisions and you have to live with the consequences of that. The main arcing storyline continues because in the end, you're still only one person in a galactic struggle. It has an impact a Movie can't have, because its interactive. You find yourself having to make choices, impossible choices that are not simple "Good/Bad", but morally ambiguous choices that you know will save one character and betray another. When its done right this is very powerful.
Is it Blade Runner? No. But its a damn sight better than Prometheus.
Then you have something like Heavy Rain, probably the boldest attempt at interactive fiction in a game. In this, its a small personal story, and the whole story changes depending on your decisions. In fairness, there's not much in way of gaming here. A few Quick Time Events, but really its all about the decisions you make and how they drive the story. Could they have picked one version of that story and made it more powerful in cinema? Sure. But that would be by removing the interactivity. Its like saying that we should have kept making Black and White movies cause they were more artistic than Colour. Eventually people learned how to make Colour another tool, rather than a gimmick. I don't think Heavy Rain has got there yet, but its an example of how far we can take this.
By the way PdG, I'm also a casual gamer and proud of it. I just objected to your sweeping statement that games should never be held to the same standard as movies. If movies are more important to you, so be it, but don't tell me I can't hold games to a higher standard.
Just for arguments sake, lets look at something like Uncharted. It's maybe 8 or 9 hours long. Of that, there's a good hour and a half of movie quality storytelling. Sure, in between there's running and gunning, puzzles, all the usual game stuff. But you can't affect the story. The story gets told exactly the same way each time. In this way its more like traditional cinema. Is it as good as an Indiana Jones movie? That's a matter of personal preference, but I'd say its certainly in the ballpark. Its not as good as Raiders, but its better than Angelina's Tomb Raider movies.
Then look at something like Mass Effect. Here you have the same story told several ways. The main storyline is still told, but the details differ. Characters die according to your decisions and you have to live with the consequences of that. The main arcing storyline continues because in the end, you're still only one person in a galactic struggle. It has an impact a Movie can't have, because its interactive. You find yourself having to make choices, impossible choices that are not simple "Good/Bad", but morally ambiguous choices that you know will save one character and betray another. When its done right this is very powerful.
Is it Blade Runner? No. But its a damn sight better than Prometheus.
Then you have something like Heavy Rain, probably the boldest attempt at interactive fiction in a game. In this, its a small personal story, and the whole story changes depending on your decisions. In fairness, there's not much in way of gaming here. A few Quick Time Events, but really its all about the decisions you make and how they drive the story. Could they have picked one version of that story and made it more powerful in cinema? Sure. But that would be by removing the interactivity. Its like saying that we should have kept making Black and White movies cause they were more artistic than Colour. Eventually people learned how to make Colour another tool, rather than a gimmick. I don't think Heavy Rain has got there yet, but its an example of how far we can take this.
By the way PdG, I'm also a casual gamer and proud of it. I just objected to your sweeping statement that games should never be held to the same standard as movies. If movies are more important to you, so be it, but don't tell me I can't hold games to a higher standard.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
Sure, in between there's running and gunning, puzzles, all the usual game stuff. But you can't affect the story.
But....periodically stopping the story to run and gun and stuff does affect the story. It pulls you out of the story every time you have to actually game. (And vice versa....)
I was also thinking last night about how silly the gamey-ness of games makes attempts to take it's story too seriously. Last of Us (which I haven't played) got tons of praise for its great story but....am I the only one who thinks that a story where any time your character dies you can just reload them back to life is hard to take too seriously? That's just one of many examples of how being a game conflicts with telling a story 99% of the time. This doesn't mean that games can't tell awesome stories but....yeah, I don't think they can't be held to the same standards as movies and books. They aren't primarily a storytelling medium (with possibly rare exceptions like Heavy Rain's attempt) so why would they be?
(But I'm the rare game fan who thinks the modern era's obsession with storytelling is misguided. Games are games, not movies, and that's not only okay, it's awesome.)
[/osgilliath]
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Yov. I honestly think its no different to the switch from Silent to Talkies, Black and White to Colour. Years from now games will have the same artistic respect as movies, both for their storytelling and their gameplay. I fundamentally disagree with you that storytelling must be one way traffic. Live theatre is a perfect example of how the audience and storyteller can affect each other.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
That's what video gamers have been pushing for for a long time, this desire to see their medium as "legitimate art". I don't think it's going to happen. As long as stories are regularly interrupted by the gamey-ness, storytelling will suffer by necessity.
Have you ever seen this awesome series from Conan O'Brien:
http://teamcoco.com/video/highlight-clu ... ent-evil-6
I love this bit where he points out that in this story driven, near-photo-realistic world your character is blocked off by small chairs. The game won't let you just move them aside.. Totally laughably absurd in a movie but in video games stuff like that happens constantly because...it's a game. Video gamers are used to that sort of silliness - we probably don't even notice it most of the time - but don't expect the general public to ever really see it as "great art".
Have you ever seen this awesome series from Conan O'Brien:
http://teamcoco.com/video/highlight-clu ... ent-evil-6
I love this bit where he points out that in this story driven, near-photo-realistic world your character is blocked off by small chairs. The game won't let you just move them aside.. Totally laughably absurd in a movie but in video games stuff like that happens constantly because...it's a game. Video gamers are used to that sort of silliness - we probably don't even notice it most of the time - but don't expect the general public to ever really see it as "great art".
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
But it wasn't a technical limitations - of course they could have let you push aside those chairs if they wanted to. But they didn't want you to because they, presumably, didn't want you to go that way for game or level design reasons. They were willing to sacrifice the logic of the world and story to improve the level design. There is barely a game ever made that doesn't do this. Because making a good game has to ultimately take priority over good story and immersive worlds and the two are often in conflict.
In Nolan's acclaimed Batman movies, Batman can't take a magic healing potion to quickly get back to full health. I'm gonna bet there's some version of that in the acclaimed Batman: Arkham games.
eta - googled it:
In Nolan's acclaimed Batman movies, Batman can't take a magic healing potion to quickly get back to full health. I'm gonna bet there's some version of that in the acclaimed Batman: Arkham games.
eta - googled it:
How would you react if a damaged protagonist in a movie healed this way?You heal by gaining experience. So doing parts of a side mission, taking down thugs, or solving riddles/finding Riddler trophies. If you need to heal at thugs, find a group of unarmed ones and focus more on evasion and countering. You get more experience (and thus, more health) if you build up a combo and integrate different moves.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I was tempted to but I honestly don't remember it!
But really healing/death is only one of the many, many concessions to logic and realism that almost all games have to make in order to be good, functional games. Concessions to logic and realism that we wouldn't think highly of in movies/books/theater but accept just fine in games.
But really healing/death is only one of the many, many concessions to logic and realism that almost all games have to make in order to be good, functional games. Concessions to logic and realism that we wouldn't think highly of in movies/books/theater but accept just fine in games.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
(Lord, I'm so bad at dropping an argument. 
)
But see, the big difference is that even with those kinds of sillier/lighter action fair, the concessions to realism or believability are done in order to try to tell the story they're trying to tell. But in games those concessions are often done to make for the sake of making good games, not making good stories. The part in an RPG where after you've killed 468 trolls you suddenly know how to cast lightning bolts isn't done because it makes the story more engaging or immersive or interesting or meaningful. It actually takes away from all those aspects storywise - but it makes for a fun game mechanic so who cares?
)But see, the big difference is that even with those kinds of sillier/lighter action fair, the concessions to realism or believability are done in order to try to tell the story they're trying to tell. But in games those concessions are often done to make for the sake of making good games, not making good stories. The part in an RPG where after you've killed 468 trolls you suddenly know how to cast lightning bolts isn't done because it makes the story more engaging or immersive or interesting or meaningful. It actually takes away from all those aspects storywise - but it makes for a fun game mechanic so who cares?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Passdagas the Brown
- Posts: 3154
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Al,
Just to clarify, I was only stating my personal preference and then asking the question: shouldn't we hold films to a higher standard?
And IMO, it sparked a very interesting discussion!
I generally agree with you that we should aim for better storytelling in all mediums, including games.
This may get me exiled, but I have enjoyed the LOTRO storyline more than PJ's movies. Is the LOTRO narrative better? Not necessarily. But I enjoyed it more!
Just to clarify, I was only stating my personal preference and then asking the question: shouldn't we hold films to a higher standard?
And IMO, it sparked a very interesting discussion!
I generally agree with you that we should aim for better storytelling in all mediums, including games.
This may get me exiled, but I have enjoyed the LOTRO storyline more than PJ's movies. Is the LOTRO narrative better? Not necessarily. But I enjoyed it more!
As I recall (though I've only seen it once), by the time we get to the end of Die Hard, Bruce Willis has his foot all bandaged up and is covered in blood and dirt. He keeps going after his wounds, but they do stay with him. So maybe not the best example of action-movie heroes cleaning up and healing quickly, though that does happen sometimes. It's seldom as brazen as getting machine-gunned full of lead and fully recovering by ducking behind a wall for a few seconds, though.Have you seen Die Hard?
I agree with yov here - with a handful of exceptions, the first priority of a game is to play well. And good mechanics don't always lend themselves to great storytelling, even while it may have a good story alongside it. This applies to even some of my favorite games, some of which I think have pretty good stories. Also, most games are action-driven, which restricts the range of stories they can tell somewhat.
Some games do manage it though. I actually think a very good example of storytelling in a game is this one from 1997:
I'm a fan of the whole series actually (and I know Myst is pretty divisive), but this is by far the best one. Everything in Riven, down to the smallest trinket, serves a purpose and connects to the central characters and the rest of the world in some way. It has a verisimilitude that few fictional worlds outside of Tolkien approach.
In most adventure-type games, puzzles are sort of an obstacle to get past so you can progress further in the story. This one is different - you have access to about 80% of the world either at the start or with minor effort. The game really only has two major puzzles, but they require you to carefully piece together observations and take notes from all around the world and truly understand how everything from the different islands works and fits together.
For example, the Rivenese culture there has its own unique numbering system that you have to know, and you learn it by visiting an empty schoolhouse and observing how the children's toys work. You don't meet or even see the villain until near the end of the game and don't actually fight anyone, yet every spot in Riven has his fingerprints on it. Basically, the worldbuilding is totally inseparable from the gameplay, which consists primarily of discovering the world of Riven and understanding how it works and why things are the way they are. I've never played any other game that had these elements so carefully woven together.
I think you're kind of making my case for me kzer za. Its the exceptions that we need to look at. Just as every movie isn't a Citizen Kane, every game isn't a Riven, a Heavy Rain or a Mass Effect. There is a huge volume of "popcorn" games, just as there are "popcorn" movies.
Take Citizen Kane for example. Now, I don't claim to be a film expert, but its widely considered to be one of the best movies ever made. It was in Black and White. Does that mean that colour movies can't be as good as Black and White movies, just because nobody has yet made a colour movie as "good" as Citizen Kane? Also, lets remember, we have over a century of film making. Talking games, I think you'd need to be in the 80's before you were even at the "Silent Movie" level of quality.
Technology has increased in leaps and bounds, but many of the games are still following that tried and tested formula. Initially games had "lives". You were alive until you weren't, and when you died you started again with another life. People disliked having to start all over again, so Checkpoints were introduced. Then Jordan Mechner came along with Prince of Persia and introduced the idea of health. When your health hit zero you were dead, but careful management of drops and potions could keep you alive. This was in a fantasy Arabian Nights setting, so the potions were not anachronistic. However, soon the mechanic had drifted into other games. I can buy into a futuristic SciFi game where there are hypos or stims that keep the protagonist going, but I don't think it works in Call of Duty. I guess what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with the Mechanic if its used correctly.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent again. My main point is that we need to look at the exceptions. We won't learn anything from Battlefield 4 or Mario Kart, that's not the kind of games they are. The Stanley Parable, Thomas Was Alone, Braid, these are examples of where gaming can transcend boundaries. And someday, we'll have our Citizen Kane. Just give it time.
Take Citizen Kane for example. Now, I don't claim to be a film expert, but its widely considered to be one of the best movies ever made. It was in Black and White. Does that mean that colour movies can't be as good as Black and White movies, just because nobody has yet made a colour movie as "good" as Citizen Kane? Also, lets remember, we have over a century of film making. Talking games, I think you'd need to be in the 80's before you were even at the "Silent Movie" level of quality.
Technology has increased in leaps and bounds, but many of the games are still following that tried and tested formula. Initially games had "lives". You were alive until you weren't, and when you died you started again with another life. People disliked having to start all over again, so Checkpoints were introduced. Then Jordan Mechner came along with Prince of Persia and introduced the idea of health. When your health hit zero you were dead, but careful management of drops and potions could keep you alive. This was in a fantasy Arabian Nights setting, so the potions were not anachronistic. However, soon the mechanic had drifted into other games. I can buy into a futuristic SciFi game where there are hypos or stims that keep the protagonist going, but I don't think it works in Call of Duty. I guess what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with the Mechanic if its used correctly.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent again. My main point is that we need to look at the exceptions. We won't learn anything from Battlefield 4 or Mario Kart, that's not the kind of games they are. The Stanley Parable, Thomas Was Alone, Braid, these are examples of where gaming can transcend boundaries. And someday, we'll have our Citizen Kane. Just give it time.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
Earlier I said:
What's interesting about examples like Riven and Heavy Rain is that they are only just barely games. From what I've read of The Stanley Parable, that one really asks whether it's a game anymore. The indie world is really pushing those boundaries and I think it's awesome but it's gotten to a point where I wonder if some of those less gamey games wouldn't be better off being called something else like "interactive worlds". But catchier than that.yovargas wrote:Many modern games, specially artsy indie ones, are increasingly blurring the line of what it means to be a "game"....
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists