39 replies to this topic

[RedAuthar]

 

 

 

Maybe actually give Sonic a story. And Sally, Roter, Bunnie, and sonsal, and Sonsal, and Roboticization as a cool replacement convept for death, and Sonsal.

I'm afraid that alone won't work.

 
Of course it won't.
 
Needs more SonSal.

No, no, no, no...what it needs is [CENSORED TO PROTECT THE INTERNET].

 

No VHS, just no. 

[ILOVEVHS]

I'm sorry, I don't know where that came from. I should use actual logic more often.

[RedAuthar]

It came from your inner desire to see your favorite aspects of the fandom in the games. 

[ILOVEVHS]

I'm dreadfully sorry, but after all, a man can dream.

[RedAuthar]

For 400 dollars. 

[TheRedStranger]

For 400 dollars. 

 

  Despite MHOP and the tofu dogs, even another Genisis Wave could not change VHS's... idosyncrasies, eh Red?

 

 Guess it's better than waking up and finding Sorzo with an avatar of Sonic hugging Amy. Then I would know the ret-cons are effecting the fans as well as Mobius.

 

 If another Genisis Wave comes around, guys, and I become Sonamy...please kill what's left of me with no hesitation. Remember, it's not the person you knew and loved...it's the walking dead.

[Captain Sorzo]

Guess it's better than waking up and finding Sorzo with an avatar of Sonic hugging Amy. Then I would know the ret-cons are effecting the fans as well as Mobius.

 

 

I want to change it now and post a casual message for humorous purposes, but...I can't. I just can't.

[TheRedStranger]

 

Guess it's better than waking up and finding Sorzo with an avatar of Sonic hugging Amy. Then I would know the ret-cons are effecting the fans as well as Mobius.

 

 

I want to change it now and post a casual message for humorous purposes, but...I can't. I just can't.

 

 

 *Puts a hand on your shoulder*. You don't have to, Cap'in. You don't have to.... 

 

 I fear this will only encourage VHS.

 

 Seriously though guys, we should have a "retcon day" FUS's own April Fools where we Retcon ourselves in humorus fashion (think opposite day).  

[Captain Sorzo]

For April Fools I'm already planning on releasing a joke entry for my story (which should have...all of one legitimate chapter by then >_>). Basically the text equivalent of the Sea3on prank last year, with all the awful fanfiction cliches I can think of and the worst writing I can stomach to type.

 

It will also be an excuse to break out my old avatar.

[TheRedStranger]

For April Fools I'm already planning on releasing a joke entry for my story (which should have...all of one legitimate chapter by then >_>). Basically the text equivalent of the Sea3on prank last year, with all the awful fanfiction cliches I can think of and the worst writing I can stomach to type.

 

It will also be an excuse to break out my old avatar.

 

I might replace EoT Sonic with a Sonamy parody. Got any takers?

[Uncle Ben]

 

 

 

Maybe actually give Sonic a story. And Sally, Roter, Bunnie, and sonsal, and Sonsal, and Roboticization as a cool replacement convept for death, and Sonsal.

I'm afraid that alone won't work.

 
Of course it won't.
 
Needs more SonSal.

No, no, no, no...what it needs is [CENSORED TO PROTECT THE INTERNET].

 

 

And from me from giving you a swift kick to the spleen

[furrykef]

The future of gaming lays in the hands of those who can tap into the mediums greatest power interactive fiction. The more we care about what is going on (the narrative) the more engaged we are. Look at what sells. The Last of Us. GTAV. Mass Effect 1/2/3. Uncharted. MGS 1/2/3/4/PeaceWalker/ and now 5. Tall Tale's The Walking Dead. Batman Arkham Franchise (which has Dennie O'neal himself writing it!) The best selling games that pull us into the gameplay have great stories. Not just great, but multi-faceted with many potential outcomes. Why would we smack Sonic in the face by railroading and watering down his persona with a scant plot? If you want a mindless platformer go buy Angry Birds. It's cheaper.

As a game designer, I couldn't disagree with you more. You did hit upon the key word, interactive. Interactivity is the thing that separates video games from other media. Therefore, any good use of the medium will stress its interactivity. But interactivity is in fact so central to the experience that I would say that any story should be in service of the interactivity, not the other way around. In fact, story often interferes with interactivity. The more time you're watching cutscenes or canned conversations, the less time you're spending interacting. That's why a lot of people (myself included) don't care too much for the Metal Gear series. I was totally into MGS1 when I was a teen, but now it's just blah blah nuclear warheads blah blah FOXDIE blah. Shut up and let me play!! And yet those of us playing for the first time don't want to skip those scenes because we're afraid we'll miss something.

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

Now consider a game like The Last Express, where you're trying to solve a murder. What do you do in The Last Express? You go from place to place, collecting evidence and listening for clues. You can't very well solve a murder without knowing who's involved, why, and how, so in this case, the story has everything to do with the gameplay.

Then there's the text adventure A Mind Forever Voyaging, which is a very interesting case. In this game you're a computer running a simulation of a city a few decades in the future to simulate a new economic plan. You spend most of your time walking around this simulated city as a simulated resident named Perry, recording everything of interest. In this case, the story is the game. It's "on rails" a bit in the sense that the overall plot progression is the same no matter what the player does, but it's still a highly interactive game; you get to choose what Perry sees and does, and it affects your experience. It feels like you're really in this big complex simulation of a town, its secrets waiting to be uncovered. You feel directly involved.

And this is a stark contrast to, say, an RPG. What do you do in an RPG? Walk from place to place (whee), fight monsters, maybe solve the occasional puzzle. The story will dictate where you go next, and very occasionally it will tie into a puzzle, but that's it. It's bolted on; it's not involved with the gameplay much at all. And with a lot of classic JRPGs, if you take away all the dialogue and the story, you'll realize it's not much of a game. You're just hitting the "attack" button over and over. Welcome to why I don't play many RPGs anymore.

In summary, it depends entirely on the game. If you want a story, make the gameplay about the story. Otherwise, just leave it all out, or make your story as a novel or screenplay instead of a game. I don't know why so many designers insist on giving their games a story that has nothing to do with the gameplay. What's the point?

[TheRedStranger]

 

And as a published writer, editor, and someone who has contributed alot to Indie game development, I can say MGS2 did indeed meandered, but that was a flaw within the narrative and a lack of capitalizing on the game mechanics to be the medium of the story. Look at games like Call of Duty and Half-Life that let you meander through out the scenes. And let's not forget there are interactive stories out there and they don't interfere with interactivity they fuel it. I mean let's look at one game alone: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-PjTuSQNLI4. ]

 

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

 

 

 

That's called bad story writing (in the biz it's known as "showing and not telling"/over-exposition and we use terms like immersion and engagement, which are also terms the gaming world took for their own critques of artistic quality) and that's what I want to see change. Sacrficing narrative (which defines lore, motivation, character, diologue, theme, ect). Gamers are growing up and we find this crap cliche. Compare Doom to Dead Space which was way more huanting and sucessful, the lore building of the monsters and the crazy cult was excellent. Also look at Ravenholm in Half-Life 2 and Father Gergori, that just made the experiance. 

 

Now consider a game like The Last Express, where you're trying to solve a murder. What do you do in The Last Express? You go from place to place, collecting evidence and listening for clues. You can't very well solve a murder without knowing who's involved, why, and how, so in this case, the story has everything to do with the gameplay.

 

 

 

 Yeah...you should express story through gameplay. That is why we are seeing the elimination of the cutscene and a replacement with interactive scenes like in Tomb Raider, RE6, ME, Half-Life Two, all the billion CODs, ect.  Sadly during the time of MGS that was technologically impropbable to do profit-wise and graphically. Cutscenes could be pre-rendered for visual quality and console limitation.  But the mechanics you praise stand on and are based in these game's as your very foundation. MGS2 is considered by the academic community as "The first Definitive Postmodern Video Game" Hideo is a progressivist for your art. If it wasn't for visionarys like him many would, like reknown critic Richard Ebert, would still consider "not art and never will be art." You should be thankful, and considerate of limitation of predecessors. Your thinking here is very sociocentric (thinking from you time frame as opposed to the early 2000's). The games needed stories and gamer designers and audiences wanted to see it in their games.

 

 

Then there's the text adventure A Mind Forever Voyaging, which is a very interesting case. In this game you're a computer running a simulation of a city a few decades in the future to simulate a new economic plan. You spend most of your time walking around this simulated city as a simulated resident named Perry, recording everything of interest. In this case, the story is the game. It's "on rails" a bit in the sense that the overall plot progression is the same no matter what the player does, but it's still a highly interactive game; you get to choose what Perry sees and does, and it affects your experience. It feels like you're really in this big complex simulation of a town, its secrets waiting to be uncovered. You feel directly involved.

 

 

 

  Thanks for justifying my pro-narrative point of view. The game should be the story, the story should be the game. They are one thing and each define the quality of it's subtance. They are mutually inclusive, not exclusive.

 

And this is a stark contrast to, say, an RPG. What do you do in an RPG? Walk from place to place (whee), fight monsters, maybe solve the occasional puzzle. The story will dictate where you go next, and very occasionally it will tie into a puzzle, but that's it. It's bolted on; it's not involved with the gameplay much at all. And with a lot of classic JRPGs, if you take away all the dialogue and the story, you'll realize it's not much of a game. You're just hitting the "attack" button over and over. Welcome to why I don't play many RPGs anymore.

 

 

 Wow...that was worst oversimplifcation of the RPG genre I ever heard. I'm sure there are several Kotor, ME, Obliviion, Morrowind, Skyrim, FF, WOW, POKEMAN (I can alread see VHS and Ben hunting you down) , fans that would vehemently disagree with you. Again you forget that all games were limited during the 90's boom of JRPG. And essentially every game involves Role Play, when you play Doom you are playing the Role of a Space Marine.  This is like judging Super Mario Brothers for it's bad graphics and tossing out it's wonderfully surrealist ideas.   

In summary, it depends entirely on the game. If you want a story, make the gameplay about the story. Otherwise, just leave it all out, or make your story as a novel or screenplay instead of a game. I don't know why so many designers insist on giving their games a story that has nothing to do with the gameplay. What's the point?

 

 

 

 What's the point of making a game without a story relevant to the game play? That is the superior question. Games are progressing towards dramatic depths and creative heights, there is a absolute gambit of Miazakian wonder we could release into the humanities. Where is your passion for possibility? Story and gameplay are not mutually exclusive, in fact when they are properly combined as they ought to be they make the most engaging and edifying of video games. I don't really care that much for ancedote (being open minded I care and wish to learn about the combined insights of whole movements and communities more than my own personal opinions) but I will give you one back. I find games like Doom dull and witless. Yet I love Perfect Dark for the N64. Why? Because the character wasn't some card-board cut-out space marine. Joanna was unique female take on the Bondian Spy, clean cut and professional woman that could do what man could do. That helped give me a healthy respect for women when I was young. Also her world full corpratvistic warlords and alien conspiracies was awesome to play. I pressed the Z trigger with vigor and reason, unaware of reality and immersed away from all metagame crap into a genuine experiance. The cutscene built up the game play and were rewards for your sucess.  With more modern takes I love the story of Gordon Freeman and the mysterious G-Man, which let's you move about a tinker with the world. Portal and Glados (oh my gosh Glados) a world without Glados and mindless Space Marines is a world millions don't want to see. 

[Captain Sorzo]

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

 

I'd like to counter that with the Marathon trilogy, the shooter series Bungie made before Halo. It's very similar in gameplay to Doom, but features an elaborate storyline with hilarious dialogue, brilliant writing, and the exploration of deep, complex themes. The storyline changes the entire experience, becoming the driving force for the player even though the gameplay is no worse than that of other shooters of the time. Blasting aliens with a pair of shotguns remains quite fun, but trying to piece together the narrative and understand its implications is ultimately much more compelling.

 

It's the narrative that keeps me coming back to those games every now and then, even though the gameplay has been greatly surpassed by newer series like Halo. It's that meaningful, even though it isn't even interactive, just text on terminals that can be either skipped or skimmed through.

[TheRedStranger]

 

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

 

I'd like to counter that with the Marathon trilogy, the shooter series Bungie made before Halo. It's very similar in gameplay to Doom, but features an elaborate storyline with hilarious dialogue, brilliant writing, and the exploration of deep, complex themes. The storyline changes the entire experience, becoming the driving force for the player even though the gameplay is no worse than that of other shooters of the time. Blasting aliens with a pair of shotguns remains quite fun, but trying to piece together the narrative and understand its implications is ultimately much more compelling.

 

It's the narrative that keeps me coming back to those games every now and then, even though the gameplay has been greatly surpassed by newer series like Halo. It's that meaningful, even though it isn't even interactive, just text on terminals that can be either skipped or skimmed through.

 

This is what engrosses me in the original Resident Evils. I love the diary entries that you have to hunt down.... and when, after you put the book down, that one guy was slowly turning through out that one diart pops out of the closet...

 

 [|_|] ......  OhmigoshimsorryIumdidn'tmeantapryI'lljusbegoin'!  Bye, bye now. *Uses grenade luancher*                                                                  Ahhhhh!whydidthatworkhardcmodessohard!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          _ -  _-  -_ 

[RedAuthar]

 

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

That's great for you, but others (like myself) are invested in the story.  Sure Gameplay has to be fun (otherwise you might as well make a movie), but if the story isn't fun or interesting, why bother putting effort forth?  This is the reason I don't really get into online shooters. 

 

Now don't get me wrong.  A simple story I can invest in.  Example:  The original Super Mario Brothers - Turtle Monster Kidnaps Princess, Plumber Brothers go rescue her  It doesn't have to be complex to feel invested.  Heck even Team Fortress 2's pretty much non-existent story is enough to for me to feel invested. 

 

The story needs to fit the game.  If it's an RPG it needs an very interactive and compelling story to hold players interests.  If it's a simple platformer, it needs a story just to set the setting. 

[TheRedStranger]

 

 

Sometimes a story can be woven into a game to give a good interactive experience, but IMO this is when the story is a fundamental part of the game and not something that's just tacked on. Let's consider a game like Doom. What do you do in Doom? You shoot monsters, grab powerups, get keys, unlock doors. The story might give you a reason why you're doing those things, but why you're doing them isn't important. Doom I and II restricted the story to the manual and a screen of text at the end of each episode. And you know what? I love it! Doom is a blast. I'm not here to find out what happened to the laboratory. I'm here to blow shit up!

That's great for you, but others (like myself) are invested in the story.  Sure Gameplay has to be fun (otherwise you might as well make a movie), but if the story isn't fun or interesting, why bother putting effort forth?  This is the reason I don't really get into online shooters. 

 

Now don't get me wrong.  A simple story I can invest in.  Example:  The original Super Mario Brothers - Turtle Monster Kidnaps Princess, Plumber Brothers go rescue her  It doesn't have to be complex to feel invested.  Heck even Team Fortress 2's pretty much non-existent story is enough to for me to feel invested. 

 

The story needs to fit the game.  If it's an RPG it needs an very interactive and compelling story to hold players interests.  If it's a simple platformer, it needs a story just to set the setting. 

 

 

TF2 has a simple (but not simplistic) plot but powerfuly unique characters and interaction. It's character driven. And character is key to game.

[RedAuthar]

Aye, it was the characters that even got me playing the game.  However the story is still just  a setting, never to be furthered or grown upon.  To do so would destroy the game. 

[ILOVEVHS]

I never would've picked up TF2 if it weren't for the Meet the Team shorts.

[Uncle Ben]

I got into TF2 via The Orange Box