Stanford Conference Puts Games Under Spotlight

Thanks to GameSpot for its pair of articles discussing initial proceedings of a day-long Stanford-hosted symposium on games, and further discussions on storytelling in games from the same event. Highlights included Kevin O'Hara of Sony Online Entertainment discussing "encouraging players to create the content for the game themselves" in Star Wars Galaxies, and Will Wright of Maxis commenting, with relation to storytelling in games: "I've never really wanted to tell a story in a game", with Sheldon Pacotti, writer on Deus Ex and its sequel, arguing "...a good game lets players create their own stories."

Comments

open ended

[masterQba]

I don't like much story in my games. I figure that games with a strict story line get old after a while, they don't hold that much replay value for me. I much prefer games with a loose story line or lack there of so I can make my own story up.

Re:open ended

[NedR]

I'd be inclined to disagree there. Games like Deus Ex have some replay value because, while the outcome is pretty much the same no matter what you do, it lets you approach problems in different ways. Also, some games like Way of the Samurai allow a player to affect the overall outcome of a game by taking completely different courses of action every time it's played. That's one of the major advantages of storytelling in games over storytelling in other mediums.

Create content for themselves?

[GonzoDave]

Why not. Players already create the victory condition and "social"(as opposed to fixed) rules for themselves, as a series of goals, even if the ones they create are exactly the same as the developers intended. Don't believe me? Go and play Battlefield 1942. The guy blowing up the planes as they spawn? That's his goal, and it's as fulfilling to him as capping a spawn point is to you. The "social" rule against laming isn't part of the game he's playing, and neither are the positive scores on the scoreboard.
Look at the various challenges CRPG players come up with-soloing, no class x, complete game below minimum level-those rules are as real in their game as anything in the code. Look at powergamers-to them, victory isn't killing the end boss, it's the finalisation of their perfect character. Killing the boss is merely vindication of their planning

There are two different concepts getting mixed...

[Sheetrock]

The first is that the linear game model is or should be a thing of the past. When the player has multiple story branches and solutions to choose from a game becomes more fulfilling and replay value is enhanced. It also makes multiplayability easier to accomplish.

The second is that stories and backgrounds are less important than the gameplay. Which I think is hogwash; granted, there are some games where story really didn't matter all that much (Quake, SimCity, Klax), but would people be as obsessed with GTA3/Vice City if they had no story to speak of?

I've played some fairly mediocre games for their storylines. A good story greatly enhances the quality of a game.

I'm going to buck the trend here

[Mukaikubo]

The first thing I want to know, when deciding if I'm going to get a game, is how interesting the story is.

There is a single solitary thing that every game I love has in common, and that is an engrossing story. Deus Ex (the first), Alpha Centauri (I nearly wigged the first time I transcended and read that ending Book of Planet text), a couple RPGs (Final Fantasy 6/7, Chrono Trigger, et alia), some old text adventure games, and so on.

I'd say about 50% of my enjoyment of a game is the story, with most of the remainder going to gameplay and music clinging to a few grim percentage points. Graphics factors in not a single whit.

Re:I'm going to buck the trend here

[Haeleth]

I have to agree. Storyless games can be fun for a quick blast, but the only games that have ever kept me up late at night have been the ones with very strong stories.

In fact, though I suspect I'm about to place myself in a tiny minority, I'll go so far as to say that even gameplay is unnecessary. The last action-based title I played to death was Deus Ex - and the aspects I liked of that didn't involve the much-hyped "emergent gameplay" of the sequel. Most of my gaming time these days goes to "visual novels" - basically nothing but story, music, and (static) visuals, with the gameplay limited to making the occasional choice.

A lot of people say things like "give me action; if I wanted to read a lot of text I'd get a book". Well, to each his own, but all I can say is that if I wanted to do a lot of mindless hacking and slashing I'd get a sword, and I turn to my computer to exercise my mind and imagination, not my mouse hand.

Maybe the companies quoted in the story don't want my money anyway, but if they do they'd be well advised to change their opinions...

Re:There are two different concepts getting mixed.

[darkmayo]

"but would people be as obsessed with GTA3/Vice City if they had no story to speak of?
"

Probably not so much, behind the story is a great gameplay but the gameplay is molded by the story. If there was no story line then I could see the gameplay of GTA moving from a single player game to a multiplayer game. Without the story you take away the main reason for conflict so the developers would have to look elsewhere for competition/conflict which would be other players.

The problem with player-created content

[*weasel]

"Everyone makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, it isn't fun, it's entertainment".

There are two basic types of player-created content. Fun, and Entertainment. Fun is what children have in a sandbox. Fun is what you get when you craft a NWN module or a Sims object. Entertainment is what you get from reading a story, watching a movie, or playing through that NWN module.

Player-created Fun is facilitated through Sandbox-styled games (eg The Sims). The player brings their own goals, and makes their own story - they are the content creator and consumer. In this setting the player Entertains themself - and almost no-one would be Entertained by watching their Fun.

The problem with player-created Fun, is that more people watch movies than make movies; more people read novels than write novels. Given the choice between reading a book or writing a book - only a small market will opt to write. Predicating your game on player-created Fun is a risky proposition at best. Compare the relative success of UO (Fun) vs Everquest (Entertainment). Only Will Wright has made it a smashing success, and it's noteworthy that subsequent versions of his hits have always added more Entertainment, more hand-crafted-story to the mix.

Player-created Entertainment is facilitated by letting players try their hand at stagecraft (eg NWN, halflife, et al). This allows the few content creators to try their hand at creating something to Entertain the masses.

The problem with stagecraft is that most people suck at creating content. Creating entertainment is inherently hard and time-consuming, and it may never find an audience. It's not surprising that most of it either wallows in obscurity or outright sucks.

Stagecraft only works well with a central community. The community allows the minority of content creators to feed the majority of content consumers. Peer-review and competition allows the content-consumer to sift through the deluge of the ho-hum without becoming discouraged, and allows the creator a measure of exposure.

The trick is, Entertainment has always found and held a larger audience than Fun. Hell, you might even say most players don't even seem to 'get' Fun any more, if you listen to the popular sentiment on UO or The Sims.

Player-created content is no silver bullet. It's just getting more lip-service in the face of growing professional content creation costs. It can certainly be a solid feature or subset of the gamespace - but basing your whole game on player-created content is in many ways more difficult and risky than hiring the appropriate talent.

Re:The problem with player-created content

[Anonymous Coward]

I was at this conference (in fact my roomate wrote the article), and Will Wright addressed this issue. He basically made it out be a pyramid (and he has the records to look at), with 10% of all players creating stories, 10% of those creating objects or skins and 10% of those making their own websites. The people who go farther in the game and start making content do it for recognition from the larger player community, not necessarily because they enjoy skinning in and of itself.

BTW, Will Wright is an incredible presenter.

Daniel

This quote made me laugh

[Pluvius]

Highlights included Kevin O'Hara of Sony Online Entertainment discussing "encouraging players to create the content for the game themselves" in Star Wars Galaxies

Yeah, because Sony certainly isn't doing it.

Rob

Re:There are two different concepts getting mixed.

[Lonath]

But what if GTA had several gangs in the world and those gangs had certain kinds of goals and such and carried out various activities (like RTS kingdoms/cities)? What if they had certain feelings towards you based on what you did or did not do (that they found out about) and over time they would hire you or try to kill you and such and maybe if you're really good you could take over the city. No story, just a big simulation you can influence and interact with to make YOUR story of how you took over the city rather than having the same damn linear story in the game. (NB: I liked the game, but I would have liked it more had it been done the way I'm describing here. Much more replay value, too as you could start over and decide to do things totally differently.)