Once Upon A Game

Technopulp writes "In William Vitka's column on CBSNews.com, Henry Jenkins of MIT, author Warren Ellis and GDC Director Jamil Moledina wax philosophical about storytelling in video games and discuss whether or not gaming will ever have its own kind of great literature. 'Could a game be as good a work as War and Peace?'"

Comments

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

War and Peace took 6 years to write, and had the agility of only one author. Games can't take that long...and they're designed by committee.

Re:No.

[Xiroth]

Yes, they are. But is there any reason they have to stay that way?

If we want well written stories, game companies need to start accepting scripts written by honest-to-god authors, and realise that to get a gripping storyline they need to design the gameplay around the story, not the story around the gameplay. Yeah, in Hollywood they occasionally design the script around the special effects, but I'm so damn tired of every game having all the emotional content of a cheesy action movie - even some of the games in genres where it can be so much better, like RPGs. Yes, there are some good stories out there, but usually it seems more like coincidence (and skilled writers managing to stuff content into a container that was never designed for it). We can do better, dammit, but it is definitely going to need a shift in thinking.

Re:No.

[GospelHead821]

An example of a game that was designed around the story that was written for it is Clive Barker's Undying. Although I had some gripes with the mechanics of the game, it really felt like an interactive horror story. And I don't just mean that it was shocking or scary. I mean that the family was genuinely gruesome.

Re:No.

[MilenCent]

If we want well written stories, game companies need to start accepting scripts written by honest-to-god authors, and realise that to get a gripping storyline they need to design the gameplay around the story, not the story around the gameplay.

But we're not talking about merely good stories here. There are plenty of great stories that are the furtherest thing from "gripping." Many authors could care less about providing you with viceral thrills. There are good adventure tales that have stood out over time, but there's always something there other than just being an adventure.

Most game developers want a gripping story, but most good authors, if they're really good, have their own ideas, and publishers usually don't want that. They just want a script they can plug assets into and make a pile of cash. The last thing they want is a soul.

We can do better, dammit, but it is definitely going to need a shift in thinking.

I agree, but who's thinking is it that must be shifted?

Re:No.

[Augmento]

a good RPG game is more akin to a good 'choose your own adventure book' than anything currently considered literature. the problem is not story in games it is the perception of english literature professors that needs broadening to include the cultural and literary impact of the electronic medium.

Re:No.

[KDR_11k]

realise that to get a gripping storyline they need to design the gameplay around the story, not the story around the gameplay.

But then you are creating a book or movie with a few game elements, not a game. You are trying to shoehorn the paradigms of a traditional medium into a different one. That approach will not net us any good "literature" for games unless by accident. To create a truly great work you must use your medium to your advantage, not fight it. Instead of thinking up a static storyline and making a game for the player to play while listening to it you need to ask yourself "What can the interactive medium do for me?". Trying to shoehorn one type of literature into another one gives us the many book-to-movie conversions that lack 90% of the story because the movie format is not suited for gigantic storylines.

The interactive medium can explore how changing variables can affect the system as a whole. Take the movie Lola Runs: It shows three different stories effected by changing one variable, the time at which Lola leaves the house. Now expand upon that. In the interactive medium you do not write down scenarios and how they would play out under your guidance, you create a scenario and teach the machine to play them out for you. The user makes choices within the game and the game reacts. Instead of leading the user along a path to show predetermined events you'd put the user in there, guide the user but don't force him, let him change the world through his actions and see the outcome.

The sandbox is the real point of the interactive medium but it could be improved yet. If you wanted to convey a morality you could let the player play around with the things you want him to learn about, showing the outcomes of his interaction in a dynamic way that makes the player understand the logic you are using. Of course, that has to be subtle or the user will brand it as propaganda (e.g. open the window while the heating is on "the world dies of global warming", as seen in some pro-environment educational game). If you wanted to show the way our politicians make decisions, make a political simulation that puts the player into similar situations and let him see what his proposed actions would cause, if you wanted to talk about the value of life you could let the player perform actions that could hurt or kill others and see the suffering, etc.

Writing a storyline and calling it a game is like drawing a graph and calling it a function.

Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Doom bucket]

You don't remember Super Mario Brothers because of story do you? "Oh my god, the princess is in ANOTHER castle? What a plot twist!"

No. You remember it because of the gameplay. I'm not saying that a game with story is impossible, I'm definitely not. Half Life, System Shock, Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy... All games with great stories... but they are mostly remembered for their gameplay, right?

A game is great becuase it plays well and is fun. Story is just the icing on the cake, and does not alone make a great game make. :)

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deus Ex

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Red Flayer]

"A game is great becuase it plays well and is fun. Story is just the icing on the cake, and does not alone make a great game"

Absolutely true. But story isn't really what great literature is about -- the plot is a device to carry a theme, or multiple themes. The trappings are what make great literature great -- imagery, etc. And there's the inherent problem with videogames -- images are laid out for the player/viewer. Timing (which is cornerstone of Hitchcock's famous knack for suspense) is in the hands of the player, not the director/designer.

This is a major problem with video games as art -- the viewed product is never exactly as the developer intended. Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist, often with many revisions before achieving the piece intended, video games are never a single version. What we see in most artful videogames is, instead, the creation of a mood or atmosphere. Without complete control over the user experience, it's hard to have the same kind of art as the 'traditional' masterpieces of literature or film. And if the designer did have complete control of the user experience, well, then it's an animated movie.

As the industry (and its audience!)continues to mature, I think we'll see more games based on story. I can't imagine myself playing a twitch game when I'm 70 (even if I had the reflexes then, I'm not sure I'd want to risk the heart attack), but a good story might really appeal.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[g_adams27]

> A game is great becuase it plays well and is fun. Story is just the icing on the cake

Only for certain genres. What do people remember about the Myst series - the fantastic point-and-click gameplay? The slideshow-style graphics? No; they remember the incredibly immersive storyline.

That's one extreme, in which the game IS the story, and the mouse/keyboard are just there to help you experience it. Then there are other games like the Final Fantasy series, which wouldn't be nearly as fun if they didn't come with epic storylines. Game mechanics are important, but can't redeem an RPG that's just boring.

Then on the other extreme of FPS games, a good storyline can still make or break a game. I found Half-Life and Half-Life 2 a lot more fun because of the story they tell (and that you take part in). I found other shooters like Quake ("You're a space marine! In space! And, uh... you've gone through a portal that's taken you... somewhere bad... I guess. Kill everything!") much less interesting.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Dachannien]

Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist, often with many revisions before achieving the piece intended, video games are never a single version.

Insert George Lucas reference here.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[AuMatar]

But story isn't really what great literature is about

Disagree. Story is ALL that matters in books. It is the essence of the book. Of course, I probably think that 90+% of what you'd consider great literature is less entertaining than the B rate sci-fi m ovie I saw last night.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[rabbitliberationfron]

This is a major problem with video games as art -- the viewed product is never exactly as the developer intended. Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist

Are you sure about that distinction? Just because a great artwork is 'finished', it doesn't mean that it is viewed exactly as the artist intended. Books don't have to be read cover to cover. Paintings can be glanced at in poorly illuminated rooms. Films can be interrupted by unplanned comfort breaks.

The subjectivity of the experience of great artwork is generally what makes it great. In fact, without that, most "critics" would be out of a job!

I don't see anything that requires complete control of the user experience in order to deliver a strongly emotionally resonant experience on a par with film/theatre/literature.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Red Flayer]

I think that you're right, but I think it's *harder* to create that experience without having at least temporal control over the finished work. But if you want to compare videogames to films, I think it's important to realize that the media are quite different with respect to how the work is viewed -- and not just on the basis of participation.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Gulthek]

I remember Grim Fandango for the story. And what a moving, original, and interesting story it was! This game was also Lucasarts' first foray into 3d adventure games and so the playing of the game itself wasn't nearly as fun as watching it be played by someone who had finished it already.

Yes, my wife and I did this. I played Grim Fandago (having played it once years before) while she watched it on tv (mirror screen).

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Red Flayer]

Well, that explains why 90% of the 'great works' don't appeal to you.

FWIW, your point of view is just as valid, but the consensus among the people who tell us what the 'classics' are happen to disagree.

Look at Hitchcock's "The Birds." The story is crap, but the suspense is masterful. The film really evokes the fear of the characters, and it's Hitchcock's use of timing and camera angles/effects that really make it work. So is it a great work, or is it crap?

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Gulthek]

Story is all the matters eh? Nothing about dialog, grammar, structure, and description? Story does matter, but it isn't the whole book.

Would "Snow Crash" be as entertaining without Stephenson's machine gun prose? Would "A Song of Ice and Fire" be as involving without Martin's richly detailed and realistic characters? Would LOTR be as popular without Tolkien's insane amount of detail? Would "One Hundred Years of Solitude" be as engrossing without Marquez's incomparable use of magical realism?

Let me give you some examples through movie:

Star Wars. Simplistic storyline that would bore anyone to tears made fascinating by incorporation of nifty ideas and placed in a space opera setting.

Memento. A decent story made unforgettable (ha) by use of an extremely clever format.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Planescape: Torment.

Completely, utterly, solely because of the storyline.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[masterzora]

I can tell you right now why you think 90+% is less entertaining that B-list movies: you're looking at it wrong.

I hate to go all English major on you (I'm not an English major, I promise), but a look at the classics can show you quite simply that the story takes a back seat. One of the biggest things that makes great/classic literature last is that it teaches the reader something about herself and/or society. Take a look at Brave New World, for example. The story was not the important part, it was merely the vessel for presenting the world and the social commentary Huxley wanted to show us. Another classic, i>Great Expectations had one of the crappiest stories I know of IMO, but I love the book. Much more important than the story were the interactions, the symbolisms, and the commentaries.

As one might learn in a basic Literature course, great literature is not about the story, and is most definitely not about being Harry Potter. For somebody reading the classics with the right mindset, they will be much more entertaining than any pure entertainment book. Harry Potter might have an engaging story that has the reader captivated for hours at a time, but it's not likely to last a hundred years like great literature.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Xaositecte]

Was basically Neuromancer with a dash of conspiracy theory.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[AuMatar]

I can tell you right now why you think 90+% is less entertaining that B-list movies: you're looking at it wrong.

No, I'm looking at it right. You're looking at it wrong :)

but a look at the classics can show you quite simply that the story takes a back seat. One of the biggest things that makes great/classic literature last is that it teaches the reader something about herself and/or society. Take a look at Brave New World, for example. The story was not the important part, it was merely the vessel for presenting the world and the social commentary Huxley wanted to show us. Another classic, i>Great Expectations had one of the crappiest stories I know of IMO, but I love the book. Much more important than the story were the interactions, the symbolisms, and the commentaries.

Brave New World sucked. It had a possibly interesting story, that got totally ruined because he got wrapped up in trying to make obscure and usually invalid societal points instead of telling the story. Great Expectations also sucked- its story was horrible, the characters motivations and actions made no sense. Had I not been reading it for class, I wouldn't have finished it (and this is from someone who finishes pretty much any book he reads, like it or not).

Symbolisms and commentaries don't make a good book. They make a boring book. I stand with Tolkien on this- " I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

As one might learn in a basic Literature course, great literature is not about the story, and is most definitely not about being Harry Potter. For somebody reading the classics with the right mindset, they will be much more entertaining than any pure entertainment book. Harry Potter might have an engaging story that has the reader captivated for hours at a time, but it's not likely to last a hundred years like great literature.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy, you know.

Great literature is not what some group of college professors say it is. Great literature is what you enjoy. And you know what- I enjoyed Harry Potter. I didn't enjoy any of the books you mentioned. Harry Potter is a great example of everything literature *should* be, but fails miserably at.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[lgw]

but the consensus among the people who tell us what the 'classics' are happen to disagree.

Right, but those people's taste is just terrible. The last thing they want in a book is entertainment value! Nothing practical can be art, therefore a written work that entertains cannot be "a classic of literature". To Hell with every piece of crap I was forced to read in high school - my library contains 1000 books each more entertaining than any of them.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave New World sucked. It had a possibly interesting story, that got totally ruined because he got wrapped up in trying to make obscure and usually invalid societal points instead of telling the story.
The entire book was about the societal points, the story was the method of introducing the world, so you can't in any way claim that the story got ruined by the points. You might say that the story would have been good were it not for those societal points (in which case I will have to disagree with you), but you can't say that it was ruined by the points.

Great Expectations also sucked- its story was horrible, the characters motivations and actions made no sense. Had I not been reading it for class, I wouldn't have finished it (and this is from someone who finishes pretty much any book he reads, like it or not).
Well, you're talking to somebody who has been known to stop reading a book halfway through if it sucked, and I finished it despite disliking the story. If you don't look at it as the story of some undeserving kid getting lots of money, acting like a jerk, and then trying to make things right and instead you see it as a story in which you can learn something about yourself and society (believe me, you can if you look at it in the correct fashion), it is an entirely different book. Try reading a book with an analytical intent instead of an entertainment intent and you will see it in an entirely different light.

Symbolisms and commentaries don't make a good book. They make a boring book.
No, they make a differnt book. The symbolism and commentaries alone don't make a good book, but the method in which the author uses them and makes them does. If you tell me one book that is known as a classic that I have read, I can tell you how the book is made besides entertainment. There is more to entertainment than an engaging story.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy, you know.
And, if you look carefully, you'll see that I never made an appeal to authority any more than somebody telling you that the dictionary says "cease" means "discontinue: put an end to a state or an activity." In every context I've heard it used, "great literature" is a synonym for "classic literature" and one can make an objective statement about classic literature like I have. Classic literature is well-defined, even if it is by a group that you think has no authority to define it, it is well-defined.

And you know what- I enjoyed Harry Potter.
And you know what, so do I. I own all 6 books plus the two text books, first published release of each. It was a major decision for me to choose between going to Disneyland for the 50th anniversary and getting Harry Potter 6 as soon as it was released. (I chose Disneyland, if you're wondering. It was worth it.) However, that doesn't make it a classic in any way.

Harry Potter is a great example of everything literature *should* be, but fails miserably at.
Except that Harry Potter will be a "fad of the past" within 50 years, defeating the purpose of great Literature. The purpose of great Literature is more for learning than entertainment. The whole "reading purely for entertainment" idea is relatively new. Reading originally started as a form of information, learning, and enlightenment and it still can be. However, today's culture has moved to a mindset where entertainment is the noblest goal and, being used to the mindless nature of most movies, tv shows, and video games, expects books to be the same.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[KDR_11k]

Now take Hitchcock's timing and apply it to a book. See the problem? There is no time in a book. Each medium has its abilities and limits, while a book can describe the thoughts and inner workings of a character and can brush aside time with a single sentence a movie can use timing and visuals to its advantage.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[KDR_11k]

Last I checked most great works were also highly entertaining works at the time of their creation. A true master can wrap a message into an entertaining work without compromising either part.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[masterzora]

And I agree. However, most people today have a different idea of entertainment so they don't see the entertainment value of the classics, which is truly a pity.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[KDR_11k]

That's not the only factor. We've seen a lot more works than the people from back then and most of our works were created with knowledge of works that weren't written back then. What was a new idea back then may have become boring in the meantime (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, the basic idea as well as many scenes have been used as a base for modern works so much the original seems downright mundane). What may have been a witty or daring joke back then is an old clichee by now (Soviet Russia jokes were funny once upon a time). Language and practices change, the "hidden allegories" in old pieces may have been highly obvious at the time, the language used may have conveyed something that is lost on us today (in 200 years I doubt many will know what "gangsta" language expresses today). References to contemporary events (especially rulers) mean nothing to us today.

Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.

[masterzora]

Certainly it takes more work to get the full value of many (though not all) of the classics, but I think many can agree that it is often worth it (not that you said it wasn't or anything like that). The story of Romeo and Juliet may be old news to everybody today, but that play is many times better than many of today's attempts to put a new spin or twist on it.

Depends on your definition of "good".

[vertinox]

I got more enjoyment out of FFVII than War and Peace. Actually, I can remember the plot line and recognize characters from FFVII, but I am hard pressed to remember what War and Peace was about other than it was written by a Russian guy.

How strange... I just the oddest senation of thousands of World Lit 101 teachers spinning in their graves.

Re:Depends on your definition of "good".

[MilenCent]

How strange... I just the oddest senation of thousands of World Lit 101 teachers spinning in their graves.

I'm spinning, and I haven't even died yet!

Re:Depends on your definition of "good".

[masterzora]

I'm spinning and I'm neither a teacher nor dead.

Re:Depends on your definition of "good".

[Anonymous Coward]

My balls are spinning, and are neither I, teacher nor dead.

Why shoot so low?

[AuMatar]

War and Peace isn't really that interesting. In fact, of all the "great literature" that english majors like to rave about, I find that less than 10% of it even makes the level of decent, much less good.

Thats the problem with people who talk about art and wether games are art- art doesn't exist. People tag some items as "art" and others as "not art" as pure snob appeal- a way to say this is what I like and others who like this are better than other people. Its nothing intrinsic in the item. There's no magical quality of an object that catapults it to the level or art or fine art. Its wether it appeals to a small group of snobs.

Hell, the set of what's included as art doesn't even stay the same. Remberandt and Van Gogh were starving artists. Shakespear was considered lewd and crude in his day and lambasted for appealing to the masses.

Forget about striving to become art or creating something for the ages. Make a game thats fun. In the end, thats all that matters.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[maumedia]

WTF is "art for the ages" anyway? Are kids today really being influenced by War and Peace, or even Shakesphere for that matter?

Does anyone give a shit about "the art world" other than academics and the filthy rich?

Re:Why shoot so low?

[killmenow]

Methinks maumedia doth protest too much.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[maumedia]

Meaning what, precisely?

I have over a thousand books in my collection, it's not an aversion to reading.

If you find a 15 yr-old on Xbox Live that has read "War and Peace" and found it relevant (or even understood what the hell was being said) then I'll eat crow.

Games may not be "art" on the level discussed here, but in the end, it's one of the only "arts" getting to the demographic.

If Shakesphere were alive today, he would choose the medium that allowed him to reach the most people and make the most money. His choice of medium was somewhat restrained in those days.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[killmenow]

Meaning what, precisely?

Meaning I'm not as funny as I think I am.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[MilenCent]

War and Peace isn't really that interesting. In fact, of all the "great literature" that english majors like to rave about, I find that less than 10% of it even makes the level of decent, much less good.

I'm a geek who's a graduate student in English Literature, so perhaps I can provide some special insight into the matter. Ready? Here we go:

YOU'RE WRONG!!!!11!!

Okay seriously, the thing is that what makes "literature" lasting doesn't so much have to do with its engagingness as a story as to its level of philosophical insight into the human condition. Ideally it should work as *both* insight and a good story.

The thing here is that, really, you have to train yourself to read good literature. Just like everyone must train themselves to learn how to read any language, they must train themselves in its understanding. That's one of the big reasons there are classes in these works -- if they were completely comprehensible to us today unaided, they wouldn't be needed. Anything older than you will have an unavoidable distance between the time it was written and your own perspective, and the greater the time, the larger the gulf that must be crossed. I think it's this distance that throws a lot of people off the study of literature.

Hell, the set of what's included as art doesn't even stay the same.

Of course it doesn't. Spenser's Faerie Queene is on its way out in critical circles, after all. But that doesn't mean it's not a great achievement. We still consider it art, it's just not art that's studied and read as much as it once was.

Remberandt and Van Gogh were starving artists.

Yes, so? There are people starving right now, people you're ignoring yourself, who will be famous for their work in 50 years. H.P. Lovecraft was almost unknown in his time except among a small circle of faithful pulp magazine readers. These days, it's not easy to determine if he's art or not, but a lot more people read him so it's looking good. In a way, if you're remembered eighty years after your death, you're automatically art.

And to extend the analogy there are games you've ignored that you'd probably love if you tried them. The GC and PS2 game Ribbit King jumps readily to mind. Although I know of few who play the game now, I think it's got a better chance of being played in twenty years than Oblivion. Who these days, after all, still plays Daggerfall? Okay, this being Slashdot, I'm sure SOMEONE will chime in with "I do!," but I think my point still stands, these games are still treated as disposable commodities, even by their creators.

Shakespear was considered lewd and crude in his day and lambasted for appealing to the masses.

Ah, I think the problem with your perspective is revealed there. He is also considered lewd and crude today in many ways. That's not a problem with Shakespeare, it is a strength. He contains both the weighty perspective into humanity (very cunningly written to as to avoid taking sides -- we really don't know what Shakespeare himself thought of anything, because he was so careful to keep himself out of it), and also the jokes, puns and sometimes very pointed sexual innuendo that pleases, these days, just about everyone who studies Shakespeare, if they have a soul.

Forget about striving to become art or creating something for the ages. Make a game thats fun. In the end, thats all that matters.

Think about the nature of literature, and the nature of games. A game is an intrinsically different medium than a book. A lasting game will have different qualities than a book will.

I believe this: if one makes a game that's truly, universally fun, it will last the ages, and be considered art a hundred years from now.

The purpose of universality is there is to minimize the distance in perspective between the future game players and the game. So what's universal? It's hard to tell at the moment, but I'd be willing to bet that Super Mario Bros., Tetris, Shado

Re:Why shoot so low?

[AuMatar]

I'm a geek who's a graduate student in English Literature, so perhaps I can provide some special insight into the matter. Ready? Here we go:

YOU'RE WRONG!!!!11!!

Okay seriously, the thing is that what makes "literature" lasting doesn't so much have to do with its engagingness as a story as to its level of philosophical insight into the human condition. Ideally it should work as *both* insight and a good story.

As I said in another part of the thread- appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

And no, the thing that makes good books lasting has nothing to do with insight into the human condition. Thats not why I read books. Its not why the vast majority of people read books, as proven by the fact that "literature" is nowhere near the top of the best seller list. The story and its presentation is all that matters. As shown by the fact every Harry Potter book *does* hit the top of the best seller list.

Now *you* might like stories with hidden meanings and symbolism and allegory (despite the fact that I'm convinced the majority of the stuff people read into books is crap the author didn't mean). Thats great, keep at it. But its not what most people like, and it doesn't make the book better for having it. All it means is that you and people like you will be more likely to enjoy it, and me and people like me will be less likely to enjoy it.

As for what makes "literature" lasting- the fact that professors and high school english teachers make people continue to buy copies. The number of people who decide to read Kafka's Metamorphisis for fun is vanishingly small. Yet it speaks volumes about the human condition. Compare to Tolkien, who tells a great story. He's still selling orders of magnitude more the Kafka.

Anything older than you will have an unavoidable distance between the time it was written and your own perspective, and the greater the time, the larger the gulf that must be crossed. I think it's this distance that throws a lot of people off the study of literature.

Nope. Its the fact that people don't enjoy it. Most people don't enjoy symbolism, they don't enjoy allegory. But I know very few people who don't enjoy a good story.

Beyond that- of all the things you can do in your life, why the hell would you want to *study* literature? Reading a good tale is fun, its a great way to kill a few hours in the evening, or spend a lazy weekend. Studying a book? Boring as hell. If I wanted to read a philisophical treatsie, I'd read a philisophical treatsie. Not one that wastes my time by wrapping it in a story and making me guess at what he meant. Studying books is a great way to take a fun passtime and remove all the enjoyment from it.

In a way, if you're remembered eighty years after your death, you're automatically art.

Nope. I read some early 20s pulp sci-fi stories, and enjoy them greatly (far more so than I ever did Faulkner or Dickens). If I were to call them art, the english profs would be sneering at me. The very idea of "art" is appeal to authority- this group of snobs decides such and such is worthy of study and therefor art.

Now if we're discussing staying power- good stories seem to have that far more than "literature" does. If a story is good, people will read it regaurdless of how old it is. Other authors will write their take on it, or write derivatives. But the dustbin of history is filled with pretentious literature writers of the type you like who noone remembers. All their allegories and speaking of the human condition failed to get them remembered, because their stories sucked.

He is also considered lewd and crude today in many ways. That's not a problem with Shakespeare, it is a strength.

Depends on who you talk to. In his own time, it was considered a weakness. Now, with no change to the content of the play, its considered a strength. W

Re:Why shoot so low?

[deek]

The point was this- don't worry about mainstream acceptance by non-gamers. Don't worry whether some movie critic or english prof thinks you're "art" or not. Make something people like to play. Thats what matters, not getting the blessing of the snobs who define "art".

  I've enjoyed reading this thread, because I can appreciate the well reasoned arguments of both sides. I have to call exception to the above though. What really matters, is making something that you like to play, not what you think other people like to play. That's when the real creativity happens. That's where games like Katamari Damarcy and Shadow of the Colossus are born. It's all in satisfying the self, and hopefully as a consequence, satisfying others.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[MilenCent]

I think you're absolutely right on that point, regardless of the field in which you work.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[MilenCent]

As I said in another part of the thread- appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Well that's getting us off to a great start. (groan) I said maybe I could provide some insight, and I provided the justification I used for why I thought it was worth providing. I was trying to help, not posit my words as the be-and-end-all of truth. Of course I think I'm right, otherwise I wouldn't think it. Of course also, you're free to take it, leave it, or (to slip into english student mode) engage with it and work towards a synthesis.

And no, the thing that makes good books lasting has nothing to do with insight into the human condition. Thats not why I read books. Its not why the vast majority of people read books, as proven by the fact that "literature" is nowhere near the top of the best seller list. The story and its presentation is all that matters. As shown by the fact every Harry Potter book *does* hit the top of the best seller list.

Well that brings up an interesting question: are readers the only measure of book quality that matters? If so, then the way to become a great author is get Oprah to pimp your book, for by your measure, advertising makes one a great writer.

Of course, we both kind of have after-the-fact definitions of greatness. I stick by mine, which is kind of like yours but after several decades have passed. We've already established that the people living at the time of a book's initial publication are not the best judges as to whether it'll become remembered through the ages or not.

Now *you* might like stories with hidden meanings and symbolism and allegory (despite the fact that I'm convinced the majority of the stuff people read into books is crap the author didn't mean).

It's a funny thing, that. There is a school of thought that, even if the writer didn't consciously mean it, he still meant it subconsciously. And there's another way of thinking about it that states, what the reader brings to the work, that's what really matters. And you could also say that people are a product of their environment, and things sneak into your work that can only be seen from a distance of decades even if there's no physical neuron in your skull labeled "subtext."

It can be shown, however, that the lasting works are those that have something more than thrills and spills, for the same reason that people won't remember Underworld: Evolution in ten years. (If they even remember it now, it's kinda fuzzy....)

As for what makes "literature" lasting- the fact that professors and high school english teachers make people continue to buy copies. The number of people who decide to read Kafka's Metamorphisis for fun is vanishingly small.

You might be surprised, my friend.

Compare to Tolkien, who tells a great story. He's still selling orders of magnitude more the Kafka.

And how many Tolkiens are there? How much of that is quality, and how much is branding? How much is the marketing push of those recent movies?

But really that's beside the point. The fact is, Tolkien does contain subtexts. It's not just a yarn. It does have something to say about the human condition. And it's ultimately a very, nay an extremely Catholic story. You don't have to be an English student to see that the story contains no less than three Christ figures, one of which is an almost literal messiah.

Nope. Its the fact that people don't enjoy it. Most people don't enjoy symbolism, they don't enjoy allegory. But I know very few people who don't enjoy a good story.

Your argument is starting to become akin to "No, you're wrong!" over and over, hm.

Beyond that- of all the things you can do in your life, why the hell would you want to *study* literature?

Um, to learn about the world and yourself? To try to gain some tricks to use in your own writing? To gain insight on what life was like back then? To expose yourself to new ideas? Enjoyment enters into it as well, of course.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[MilenCent]

"Regardless of the field in which you work?" What was I thinking when I wrote that? You're right, period.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[AuMatar]

Well that brings up an interesting question: are readers the only measure of book quality that matters?

Whether you enjoyed reading it is the measure of quality. Other than that, no measure is possible.

We've already established that the people living at the time of a book's initial publication are not the best judges as to whether it'll become remembered through the ages or not.

Well, that is kind of self fullfilling- in 100 years, if we still remember it, its remembered through the ages :)

There is a school of thought that, even if the writer didn't consciously mean it, he still meant it subconsciously.

Utter bullshit. It translates to "I think this interpretation is cool, so I'm going to pretend its right wether it is or not". If you used logic like that in the sciences, you'd be laughed out of academia.

And there's another way of thinking about it that states, what the reader brings to the work, that's what really matters.

More BS. Another way of saying the same as the above.

You might be surprised, my friend.

Not likely. I kno the number *is* non-zero, but its pretty damn small.

The fact is, Tolkien does contain subtexts. It's not just a yarn. It does have something to say about the human condition. And it's ultimately a very, nay an extremely Catholic story. You don't have to be an English student to see that the story contains no less than three Christ figures, one of which is an almost literal messiah.

Dear god, when you read the book did you totally skip the introduction? The part where he says there is NO allegory or symbolism in the book? THis is an example of the worst kind of lit bullshit- the author friggin TELLS YOU that there is no symbolism, and you try and add it to try and prove your point. WHich goes back to my point that 90% of all symbolism you guys talk about doesn't exist.

so I ask, then, why so many books don't get more than a first printing?

A combination of economic issues (expense of printings and ROI), and the fact that there are so many books being written today (and people are reading less and less) that noone can keep up. Only the ones that get good word of mouth manage to get a following and sell large numbers.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[drsquare]

War and Peace isn't really that interesting. In fact, of all the "great literature" that english majors like to rave about, I find that less than 10% of it even makes the level of decent, much less good.

War and Peace is a bad example. The story itself isn't that long, it's just padded out really badly, the author rambles on and on repeating himself over and over again, saying things he's already said a hundred times before.

There are books of similar length which aren't nearly as turgid or heavy, such as the Karamozov Brothers or the Count of Monte Cristo. People read them today, I can't see people playing Final Fantasy XI in a hundred years.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[Haeleth]

> There is a school of thought that, even if the writer didn't consciously mean it, he still meant it subconsciously.

Utter bullshit. It translates to "I think this interpretation is cool, so I'm going to pretend its right wether it is or not". If you used logic like that in the sciences, you'd be laughed out of academia.

I find it amusing that you, who are so quick to accuse other people of logical fallacies, are yourself so fond of strawmen. Please, before you decide arbitrarily to attack an entire body of scholarship, at least make some basic efforts to find out what it is you're attacking?

In the study of literature, one never says "this interpretation is right" -- just as in the sciences, one never says "this theory is true". One says "this interpretation is consistent, fits the text, and raises interesting points that a reader can consider to enhance his/her enjoyment of the work" -- just as in the sciences, one says "this theory is consistent, fits the observed facts, and makes predictions that we can test to further our understanding of the universe".

If you don't think the interpretations enhance your enjoyment of the work, then ignore them. Nobody's making you broaden your mind: that's up to you to embrace or reject.

Dear god, when you read the book did you totally skip the introduction? The part where he says there is NO allegory or symbolism in the book? THis is an example of the worst kind of lit bullshit- the author friggin TELLS YOU that there is no symbolism, and you try and add it to try and prove your point. WHich goes back to my point that 90% of all symbolism you guys talk about doesn't exist.

On the contrary. It absolutely is true that a text can say things that the author did not consciously "intend". That doesn't mean they're not there, any more than Mars ceases to exist if you stop believing that the gods put it there to control our destiny. Mars i s still there whether you believe in horoscopes or not; subtexts are still there whether you believe the author intended them or not.

And consider that authors are, in fact, allowed to lie. I've lost count of the number of works of fiction that begin with words along the lines of "this is a true story". The author friggin TELLS US it's a true story, but we DARE to call it fiction just because it involves supernatural events that we don't believe in! Oh, the bullshit we must wallow in!

Or, moving things into a context you seem to find more comfortable: if I were to write a book with the intention that you should hate it, are you obliged to hate it, or are you permitted to enjoy reading it if it's written in a way you like and has a story that interests you? If I put in the preface "this book is boring", does that mean it's boring, or are you still allowed to decide that to you it is not boring?

If you are allowed to enjoy a book that the author considered boring, then I am allowed to find symbolism in a book that the author considered to contain none, am I not?

Incidentally, if we look at what Tolkien actually wrote rather than the part you misquoted, he actually says "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none" (emphasis mine). Reading on: "I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. [...] 'applicability' [...] resides in the freedom of the reader", which I find difficult to read as saying "don't you dare interpret my text".

In other words, he is denying very specifically the charge that LoTR was written for the purpose of being a political or allegorical work. He is not trying to deny his readers the freedom to interpret its characters and events as they please.

Re:Why shoot so low?

[MilenCent]

Whether you enjoyed reading it is the measure of quality. Other than that, no measure is possible.

I think I would agree... but to remind that after increasingly long periods of time, the things that are remembered and continue to be read are often quite different from what is popular at the time, and that people do enjoy reading literature. Maybe not you, but Shakespeare is read profitably, and enjoyably, by many even now.

Well, that is kind of self fullfilling- in 100 years, if we still remember it, its remembered through the ages :)

But whether it's remembered after a century is my definition of art. You can say something is art and artistic now, and you might even make a pretty good guess and such guesses are important.

By "remember," note what I mean is "remember in a way that is not obscure." You can look up the names of all kinds of things that were published Way Back When, they're remembered in that sense, but lots of them are not read anymore.

More BS. Another way of saying the same as the above.

No, I have to disagree with you completely there. A reader, in interpreting a work, can never conjure the precise images the original author intended when he wrote. There is always something of the reader in what he takes a work to mean.

Not likely. I kno the number *is* non-zero, but its pretty damn small.

I disagree. But I also point out, again, that what becomes popular and is widely read is often more a function of advertising dollars than book quality. How many books has Danielle Steele sold? How many copies did The Da Vinci Code sell? If you say that a story's worth should be determined solely by its grippingness, then how come so many utterly non-gripping stories become popular?

Dear god, when you read the book did you totally skip the introduction? The part where he says there is NO allegory or symbolism in the book? THis is an example of the worst kind of lit bullshit- the author friggin TELLS YOU that there is no symbolism, and you try and add it to try and prove your point.

Why should I try to prove something that seems obvious? If it's not hard to prove, then why is it worth proving?

1. The worth of a book, even artistic worth, is more than its contained allegory or symbolism.
2. Symbols, as I said before, have a way of sneaking into works whether you want them to or not. Which is some of what that fairly geek-friendly english guy, Joseph Campbell, said.
3. I think what's getting in the way here is that you have a beef against the very idea of the study of literature. You think it's not worth studying Conan novels? I say it is. In fact, I say if you enjoy something enough then you can't help but study it.

WHich goes back to my point that 90% of all symbolism you guys talk about doesn't exist.

Your use of the term "you guys" is enlightening.

Why do you think I post on Slashdot? I was doing so before I decided to major in literature. I still consider myself a geek first. Part of the reason I got into English was to find answers to the very questions you have been asking. The answers I've given you are the ones I've arrived at myself.

If you're really interested in resolving the questions you ask instead of merely dismissing an entire swath of human experience in a broad stroke, and you don't want to take my word for it, then do what I have done. Or at least work to bridge the gap of understanding.

A combination of economic issues (expense of printings and ROI), and the fact that there are so many books being written today (and people are reading less and less) that noone can keep up. Only the ones that get good word of mouth manage to get a following and sell large numbers.

So you yourself admit that the thing that everyone's reading is not always the most worthy?

This exchange has gotten unwieldly, so I'm afraid it might be difficult to continue the conversation. If you're interested in continuing the discussion through email though, feel free to drop me a line.

Re:No. - Duke Nukem Forever

[eggsurplus]

Duke Nukem Forever

Videogames or Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of Millions of Americans agree that NFL Football is much better piece of entertainment to spend Sunday afternoon with than War & Peace.

There are plenty of games that last longer!

[rabbitliberationfron]

Disgaea for starters. Isn't War and Peace more memorable for its length than its quality (sounds like a porn star in that respect)?

I do get fed up with the "games as storytellers" topic. I don't quite understand where it comes from. Just because games are played on TV, doesn't mean they *have* to be compared with movies. Football (soccer) is played on grass, but has nothing to do with tending one's lawn. In fact, quite the opposite!
Some games have stories, great. Not all games do. Games generate their own stories. Consider the storyline of the last game of chess you played or the last basketball match you watched. *If* a game sets out to tell a story (eg RPG), then fine, compare it with stories. If it doesn't, then stop bothering.

From the article: "Creating powerful narratives is the next step ... We need real emotional and intellectual experiences." Really? Maybe if the game is trying to tell a story. But not all games try. Not all games need to. Should families stop playing charades at Christmas until Grandad comes up with a better plot as justification for playing? What a load of rubbish. We should enjoy games for what they are. I still want a game that is fun for 30 minutes. If I want to read a book, then guess what ... I'll actually read one.

And, most of all, STOP LUMPING ALL GAMES INTO THE SAME POT.

Re:There are plenty of games that last longer!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Creating powerful narratives is the next step ... We need real emotional and intellectual experiences." Really? Maybe if the game is trying to tell a story. But not all games try. Not all games need to. Should families stop playing charades at Christmas until Grandad comes up with a better plot as justification for playing? What a load of rubbish. We should enjoy games for what they are. I still want a game that is fun for 30 minutes. If I want to read a book, then guess what ... I'll actually read one.

Indeed. I don't see why some people are desperate to turn all video games into interactive literature. Like you say, you can just read a book if you want a literary experience. That said, there are games with excellent stories, and there have been for many, many years. Just because the latest Grand Theft Auto or Doom doesn't have an epic and mature storyline doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The entire article gave me a "I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying" vibe, which often happens when I'm reading an article about video games written by someone who apparently doesn't know anything about them.

TFA:

Video games, as narratives, are not getting better. This can be partially linked to technology: Who needs a good story when we have "next-gen" HD rubbish being rammed down our throats.

Did we even ask for "next-gen?" What the does next-gen mean? Prettier inanity?

Yes, because on every message board I go to, people are denouncing graphics (nobody asked for them!) and demanding storylines on par with War and Peace. I hear people are shunning Oblivion because it's graphics are too good (HD rubbish).

Please give me a fucking break.

TFA:

Game companies do not seem to believe that telling better stories is in their best interest. They've generally relied on the graphics and the bells and whistles to sell games. With a few exceptions, they've never tried to sell us on emotion or character. This can be partially blamed on us, the gamers. Soon, however, gaming companies might have to change their ways.

What the fuck is this? Is every action game supposed to be an epic literary achievement? Should Serious Sam quote Nietzsche and Plato before blowing away the next 10,000 enemies? We've always had roleplaying and adventure games to supply us with good stories and emotional content, and we still do. Many action games these days can have a strong story, too, but that doesn't mean that they all must have one.

Also, the reason why game companies believe that pushing better graphics is in their best interest is because it works, and always has worked. People love graphics.

TFA:

The best next-gen game is mediocre when compared to -- heaven forbid -- a good book.

Is it? I didn't know I was supposed to compare Unreal Tournament 2004 with Ernest Hemingway, whose books I've never even read because I couldn't give two shits about him.

Grim Fandango, Final Fantasy VII and Chrono Trigger (among others) were all emotionally engaging for me and had stories and characters that I liked. Are they shit because I didn't receive a profound intellectual revelation while playing them?

Re:There are plenty of games that last longer!

[airshowfan]

I agree.

The relationship between interactivity and storytelling is a tricky one. Anyone should be able to recognize that you don't need a "plot" in order to enjoy a video game. However, like you pointed out, a gamer generates their own story. The more freedom the gamer has within the game, the more interesting a story can be generated. Ironically, games which progress "on rails" through a fairly strict storyline are those that give the gamer the least freedom to generate a story.

I wrote the following paper about this:

http://airshowfan.com/researchvideogames.html

(It got published in a research journal, so I do think it's pretty good)

There are basically two kinds of story in a video game: the synchronic and the diachronic. The synchronic story is the one made up by the actions of the player (like "the storyline of the last game of chess you played or the last basketball match you watched" as a previous poster said). The diachronic story is made up of the back-story, of cut-scenes, and of in-game events that are outside of your control (such as a non-player character saying/doing something, or the environment changing spontaneously like when explosions or enemies are triggered when you go to a certain area).

The diachronic stories can have branches. If the player takes certain actions, this could trigger the next bit of diachronic story to play "Path A", while other actions on the part of the player can cause the game to go through diachronic "Path B" instead. So the things that happen in the synchronic story can push the diachronic story in one of a few pre-written directions.

However, I think it's important to realize that these two kinds of story are fundamentally incompatible. The synchronic story is mostly about the physical things you do inside the physical world of the game. You may make some choices from a menu about what to say, about whether you think the characters should do A or B, etc, but all that this really decides is whether you want to take on challenge A or challenge B. Challenges A abnd B are "gameplay", where the synchronic story happens, where you move around and do battle and avoid or face dangers and collect items and interact with your environment. This kind of thing - which is what videogames are really about - is fundamentally different from the choices a good story is about. Collecting items and interacting with your environment and with the entities in it is very different from the emotional, intellectual events that happen in a story, that happen when personalities interact.

In that sense, the "story-telling" potential of a video game is no less limited than that of a movie or TV. When you're playing, you're worried about completing simple tasks, not about the kinds of factors that make a good book / movie / TV show interesting. Even if the cut-scenes are really great and make you really relate to the characters, this is not made any stronger by the fact you just had to complete a simple task. It's like a movie or book or TV show where you're in charge of making sure the action sequences, "sneaking around" scenes, and puzzle-solving parts are successful, but where the REAL plot is still outside your control.

If it because of this fundamental difference, between the complexity of the people / interactions / decisions / emotions that make good stories and the simplicity of interactive gameplay, that I think video-games cannot tell stories any better than a book or movie. They can be AS good, but the interactive parts would not make a story great if the story is not great to begin with (in which case the interactive parts almost just get in the way).

Of course I enjoy vidoegames with a good story. It's cool to think that you're doing what you're doing to save the world, to explore an alien environment, to combat an evil and powerful enemy, etc, rather than to just out-trick a computer. Stories make most videogames more fun - a videogame is usually better for having

Because I have to mention it at least twice a year

[IgLou]

X-Com I think falls in that category of a great or classic. The funny thing (and it looks like other posters have said it as well) is that there really wasn't a story in the conventional sense. But it did have mood and setting and conflict.

I think this might be more of a case of apples and oranges. Think about TV and movies... a great TV show doesn't always make for a good movie and vice versa. Similar to that a TV show can be regarded as a great work and not necessarily have the best written story (ie: "Cheers" great dialogue/characters/acting, mediocre story).

Something else to consider, considering how games can have a user driven story (The Sims for example) how can video games even be rated equally based on their stories?

war and peace

[vivIsel]

This article deeply misinterprets Tolstoy's novel. From TFA:

"Jenkins elaborates, "The last hundred pages [of "War and Peace"] is this essay that Tolstoy wrote, saying 'if the Russians had done this differently, then this would have been the result and if the French had done this differently then this would have been the result.' "It's not hard to look at 'War and Peace' and say that this wanted to be a video game."

Absurd. The last hundred pages of War and Peace describe the way in which events necessarily turned out as they did, and that those in power were so constrained by their roles that they had no more choice than the cannons that fired at Borodino. The true power, Tolstoy claims, lies with the people--but not in any concrete choices they make. In their mass action they constitute the integral of history, that which drives and shapes it. Tolstoy would never, ever, ever have said "if X had done Y differently, Z would have happened." He viciously attacked those who said precisely that--they were looking only at the manifestations of history, not its causes.

And for all of you who appreciate [insert videogame here] more than Tolstoy: it's your perogative, and there's no accounting for taste. But I've played a lot of videogames, and I've read a lot of Tolstoy (Anna Karenina, Resurrection, War and Peace, The Devil, The Forged Coupon, The Death of Ivan Illyich, Family Happiness, Sevastopol in May, Sevastopol in December, The Kreutzer Sonata, and countless other short stories). And as someone who met and appreciated video games (and I can think of several games I would classify as 'brilliant') before I encountered Tolstoy, I'll say this: I have never played a game that posessed anything like the fierce invention, modal clarity and deep insight of Tolstoy's works. It may be fashionable to bash literature on Slashdot--there was a discussion on Shakespeare vs. Video Games the other day on which I barely restrained myself from commenting--but the insight of War and Peace will never grow old or die.

Re:war and peace

[maumedia]

It will if no one reads it, or the language becomes stale enough that no one finds it relevant.

Re:war and peace

[Annwas]

This almost strikes me as trollish in its simplicity, but allow me to point out the obvious:

It is already difficult to play many Win95, DOS and older games. I am fairly confident that the staying power of a literary work that has been translated into every significant living language on earth as well as adapted to stage and film multiple timees over is greater than that of any one-shot, one-platform (emulators aside) digital work.

Granted, there may well be some point in the future where 'War & Peace' is no longer regarded as anything more than a minor footnote. However, that time is so far off as to be meaningless, especially with respect to this thread and its focus on a much more transient media.

I'm sure stories are great.

[AdamThirteenth]

But who really reads the plot behind the yellow exclamation mark?

I think the point is missed by a few of you

[Anonymous Coward]

You have stated that game XYZ was not great/classic because of Story, but because of gameplay. This is a true statement, but its only great/classic to the hardcore gamer. I think what this article is discussing is trying to pull everyone into the fold of computer/video games. There are books out there that pretty much everyone has read (Huckleberry Finn, Farewell to Arms, Romeo and Juliet come to mind) and the same goes for movies, but there is not one game where you can say the majority of the educated populace has played. The challenge is drawing in the casual and non-gamers, and I think that is probably going to have to be through nice visuals, simple game play, and a compelling story.

Re:I think the point is missed by a few of you

[KDR_11k]

but there is not one game where you can say the majority of the educated populace has played.

Tetris?

Pong

[r_jensen11]

Need I say more? Well, maybe Duck Hunt....

Games as good as fiction

[killmenow]

"Mercy on us, what a violent attack!" replied the prince, as he came forward in his embroidered court uniform with silk stockings and buckled shoes.

How is that any better than: "You have moved into a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a grue."

Re:Games as good as fiction

[MilenCent]

It's not, because you took it out of context. Context is everything. What is the grue's motivation?

Re:Games as good as fiction

[kclittle]

It's hungry?

Re:Games as good as fiction

[Corbu Mulak]

No, it is simply lashing out at a society that has too long shunned other species. Long live the grue!

Betrayal at Krondor

[rsborg]

I'm not saying that a game with story is impossible, I'm definitely not.

You have obviously never played games like Betrayal at Krondor. Definitely great storywork there, and was intermingled with gameplay. The description of even common things like items and "flavor" characters were very rich and detailed.

I'll stop with the pump up, but imagine a political game with descriptions and narrative from Jon Stewart, or maybe an economics/finance game with narrative from other popstars (Jim Cramer, etc).

The fact is that there is a lot of real potenital for BOTH gameplay and narrative, each feeding on the other to produce something that is greater than either.

human experience

[Harmotech]

literature typically excells in sharing in the human experience. what makes literature compelling is how the author relates the reader to the characters or the situation. the human abilities to empathize/sympathize allow for an experience that transcends the mere action of a plot. video games have never given me such an experience. i have enjoyed the storylines of videogames much like i would the writings of a pulp novelist: exciting and swift. however, they, of course, have never moved me quite like a great novel. i don't see why videogames can't accomplish the same feat. the question is: are users interested in making their games more than the light fantasy they are?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I hope not

[Forrest Kyle]

I hope they don't make a game like War and Piece. It would be thirty times longer than necessary, have two hundred main characters all of whom are named Alexei or Anna, and have a barely discernable plot.

Homicidal Semaphore

[HTH NE1]

And also great story can't overcome a bad game interface. I don't think any game could overcome a flaw like: "The auto-aiming on the dual-gun system was so bad, it was as if I was watching a homicidal semaphore session."

Unless, I guess, there was a way you could have a great story in a game named Homicidal Semaphore.

And then what would be next, a FPS with an aldis lamp? Oh right, they already did that and called it Doom 3.

RTCW showed the possibility...

[kclittle]

I'm not going to claim that Return To Castle Wolfenstein was the equal of War and Peace or Citizen Kane, but it certainly proved to me that an interesting, creepy, and rather fun plot could be sustained through an entire game. What kept it back was that the technology was not up to providing a smoother, freer, less disney-ride-on-a-track feel.

So, can the game developers make it all the way to "great literature"? Well, let's let the tools mature a bit before we decide. AFAIK, "Oblivion" may have already shown the way, at least technically. Alas, my current rig can't run it! :)

Re:RTCW showed the possibility...

[Corbu Mulak]

I agree. I think RtCW was the first game that I thought "this would make a damn fine movie." And I play a lot of video games.

We Can Make Games Better

[iridium_ionizer]

Yes, Cris Crawford is right (at least mostly right - see GDC Rant): Games need to become interactive storytelling. Why? Because if you can control your character in shooting, swinging a sword, or buying something, then WHY can't you decide what to say to them (and have them react accordingly). Now, I don't think that this needs to happen to all games but it probably needs to happen (at least to a degree) with all games that include major bits of story (eg. cutscenes, etc.).

A previous poster in a previous thread mentioned that having AI able to generate text in real time (an emotion/information driven AI), coupled with text-to-voice synthesizers would drive interactive storytelling. That combined with voice recognition software (voice to text) would be the holy grail of storytelling. Big time developers and publishers really should be investing in these technologies right now!!!

In the meantime, the Fallout/Deus Ex/Knights of the Old Republic/Oblivion method of giving you multiple choices of dialogue and actions ought to become the de facto standard for story games. Yes that requires more recorded/written dialogue, but those games really stand out because of it. If people just stopped buying games with non-interactive stories, developers would stop making them. Likewise if enough fans complained.

Now I know you are going to say, "But I like the linear Final Fantasy story because it is so well crafted, etc. and you can't do that with branching dialogue." And let me just say that I like Final Fantasy stories as well, but it is not impossible to make a non-linear story that is also good. Yes, it is more difficult, but if stage actors can improvise moving drama on the fly then game developers should be able to do it when they have it planned out.

Also, little things like constant and dynamic animations for characters make a big difference in making a character seem alive. No one stands still when you are talking to them. People yawn, breath, shift their weight, and gesture when talking. And when people are walking they speed up, slow down, change the gate of their walk, step over or around obstacles, and trip occasionally. If you think these are trivial just remember back to Sonic the Hedgehog. When you stop using the controller Sonic starts blinking, yawning, and eventually gets out his yo-yo. That was cool!

Re:We Can Make Games Better

[Haeleth]

A previous poster in a previous thread mentioned that having AI able to generate text in real time (an emotion/information driven AI), coupled with text-to-voice synthesizers would drive interactive storytelling. That combined with voice recognition software (voice to text) would be the holy grail of storytelling. Big time developers and publishers really should be investing in these technologies right now!!!

Unfortunately, that's an AI-hard problem. Nobody can do text generation. Nobody even knows how to approach it. With current technology, generated text always ends up as gibberish.

Even text-to-voice is horribly difficult. I don't know where current research stands, but I do know that when I hear a current commercial text-to-voice system, it is instantly recognisable as such. There's a reason why the railways and suchlike are still using the awful system of splicing together recordings of people reading the various words. Because awful as it is, it still sounds more human than a fully synthetic voice.

But don't worry - if anyone does solve these problems, we'll know about it. Because a computer passing the Turing test will make world headlines.

Re:We Can Make Games Better

[Red Flayer]

"Now I know you are going to say, "But I like the linear Final Fantasy story because it is so well crafted, etc. and you can't do that with branching dialogue." "

Actually, I like sandbox games. Though Bethesda has done grea work with TES series, which allow both sandbox play and plot-driven play -- allows for a change of pace, and allows themes to be brought out in the plots.

Grues, in the FUTURE!

[MilenCent]

Indeed, the grue does lives long....

One of the cleverest bits of Infocom's classic (extremely cool) sci-fi adventure Starcross is that, although it takes place a couple of centuries from now in an alien space probe carved out of an asteroid, when you walk into a dark place, you can still get eaten by a grue!

I always wondered, in that game, when you manage to finally turn on the lights in the dark area, what happened to the grues? They vanish entirely from the game.

Game greatness != book greatness

[eamonman]

If I want a convoluted plot with deep storylines and lengthy descriptions, I'll play Xenogears again ;)

Acutally, you will never find this. If we do get games with the above description, you'll be looking at a big waste of money. First off, most generes of games don't need this. Fighting no, racing, no, puzzle, no, H-games^H^H^H^H^H^H^H other games, no.

Only ones that matter are adventure, RTS, RPG.

RTS can benefit a little, but most of the reknown ones come down to skilled planning and quickness, which sounds like the exact opposite reason I'd read a book.

An RPG needs to be customiable, and the best ones (I think) (FFT, FFIII, FF8, XenoG, DQVII, Phant star (all), Star Ocean) were mostly because of the gameplay (and the few moments where I did feel for that characters).

Adventure, well... I don't know if this even exists anymore (alone in the dark, the ol' Willams's Sierra games, Infocom text advetures). Good book-like qualities might help, but I think developers have moved on and tried to make stuff like GTA which is mostly open ended... which is what a book is not. A book allows for free interpretation, not exploration.

Games that are neat are because of the gameplay. GAME-PLAY. Look at the Spore GDC vid. That is going to be an unbelievable game. The possibliities are endless, plus the melding of genres is pretty crazy. At the same time I see about an abstract's worth of a plot there.

So yeah. Don't see it happening sometime. But then again, I'd like to see it happen.

Narrative != Gameplay

[airshowfan]

The problem with the whole "videogames should be exploiting their storytelling potential!!!" thing is that narrative and interactivity are basically like oil and water.

Either the game makers are telling a story (through an intro, cut-scene, pre-scripted in-game event, etc), or the gamer is making his own story (by interacting with his environment, seeing how items and entities and the environment interact). Either the gamer is sitting passively watching the plot unfold, or he is doing his own thing. The kind of story in the cut-scenes (stories of personalities interacting, people going through emotions, etc) is fundamentally different from the kind of actions the gamer is responsible for, from the "story" the gamer makes (figuring out the rules of a simple system so that he can out-trick a computer).

So "telling a story" happens at times when interactivity does NOT happen, and vice versa. If the story-telling in the narrative cut-scenes is actually good, then the gameplay just gets in the way. If the gameplay is good, then the cut-scenes don't really add much to it. They're nice, and I like them, but they're not what makes the game good, just as interactivity can not make a narrative good. That's why I said that narrative and gameplay are like oil and water. You can have a game with both, but one does not really help the other much.

For example, the article says "With videogames, the audience takes the teller's baton and continues to tell the story... This way, the game player enjoys the storyteller's thrill, adapting the narrative to his or her satisfaction, while also being the audience for the narrative elements that the game developer provides... We have never had a storytelling medium like video games... Game playing represents the hybrid of both aspects of storytelling, where the audience is empowered to self-propagate the storytelling creation and enjoyment. This stimulates their own creativity and gives them the experience of controlling their destiny... But where does that take us? Video games, as narratives, are not getting better". Right, that's because a narrative is not enhanced by interactivity, it is only paused by it. Either the game makers are telling a story with the gamer watching, or the gamer is trying to complete a challenge while the story is paused.

The exception to this are games that have no real "story", but where the system one masters inside the game is rich enough, interesting enough, complex enough, and similar enough to a real-world system (rather than to a computer simulation of a few entities and a few parameters in a simple environment), where the gamer-generated story IS the story. All that the game-makers want to communicate is stuff that can be "learned" from figuring out the "system" where the game is set. This is the case with Sim City, The Sims, The Movies, and all the Sim Something / Something Tycoon games. These games don't tell a story, they don't narrate, they just illustrate. THAT is the potential that video games ought to explore. Not TELLING stories, but SHOWING stories. Not narrating, not going from beginning to end, but teaching/showing/expressing/illustrating something just through the challenge the gamer must complete, just through the world/system/environment/entities the gamer must learn to influence. This is very different from telling a story. It is almost the opposite of narrative. This is not something a writer can help you with. This kind of art - expressing something about the world and human nature by illustrating it through an open-ended interactive experience - is a whole new kind of art.

It is like a teacher that gives his students an assignment where the assignment does not lay out the things to be learned, but the teacher knows that, while completing the assignment, the students will need to expose themselves to certain ideas, skills, techniques, or bits of knowledge. It's open ended and simple but contains, hidden in it, the requirement to see / learn / realize / think about something. THAT is the future of videogames. And it is NOT telling a story or trying to be a book or movie.

Planescape

[Mindcry]

I don't think this guy has ever looked at Planescape: Torment... It's about the best game writing I've seen. A lot of the old SSI gold box games were pretty well written a well. If the gameplay sucks though, no one is going to give a second thought to how well written the plot might be.

Screw "Art"

[mqduck]

I really wish I were a game designer, making some game with some brilliant story, so I could say the following:
"Fine. If I say I agree with you that video games can't be art, will you show up, go away, and let me finish making my story?"

One wonders

[astrokid]

Elaine: That is so true! Although one wonders if "War and Peace" would has been as highly acclaimed as it was if it was published under it's original name "War---What Is It Good For?" Lippman: What? Elaine: Yes. Mr. Lippman. It was his mistress who insisted he called it "War and Peace." "War--What Is It Good For."(sang) Absolutely nothin'! (spoken to Testikov)that's the song that they got from Tolstoy.

Re:One wonders

[astrokid]

formatting :/

Elaine: That is so true! Although one wonders if "War and Peace" would has been as highly acclaimed as it was if it was published under it's original name "War---What Is It Good For?"

Lippman: What?

Elaine: Yes. Mr. Lippman. It was his mistress who insisted he called it "War and Peace." "War--What Is It Good For."(sang) Absolutely nothin'! (spoken to Testikov)that's the song that they got from Tolstoy.

Games make the player the storyteller

[spyrochaete]

Games allow the player to tell their own story as they play. For instance, no two people will play an RPG the same way so every character has its own tale of success or failure. Or, two friends play Virtua Tennis every day for a year and the underdog, after losing 80% of games, has a huge upset victory in a championship. How about, in Vice City you assassinate the Hatian gang leaders at their comerade's funeral, his thugs give chase and blast your car until it's a careening fireball, so you steer it around toward the gang and bail out seconds before it explodes, killing your attackers in one fell swoop!

The interactivity of games is what makes them oranges to movies' apples. A good game is one that YOU tell stories about, and your story is like no one else's.

Case in point, my coworker just told me a great story about an experience in Oblivion.

The theif's guild sent him and 2 other thieves on a race to steal someone's diary. He followed one of the thieves to the location and watched as she stole the diary. It was too late at night to return the diary so he followed her all the way home, sticking to the shadows, and waited behind her house until she fell asleep. He then picked the door lock, snuck into her bedroom, and stole the diary off her table. The next night he gave the diary to the guildmaster.

Wrong Question.

[sesshomaru]

"Can a game be as good as War and Peace?" is the wrong question. Here's the right question, "Can a game ever be as good as Dumbo or Fantasia?" (you can also put Nosferatu or Cabinet of Dr. Caligari if you like.)

Games aren't a narrative art form they are a visual art form. Is narrative unimportant? Well, no, it's not entirely unimportant, much as it wasn't unimportant in Watchmen or Da Vinci's Last Supper. (There's actually a better Last Supper to reference by a less well known Rennaissance artist, but I can't think of his name right now. Partly because it's a better example of Rennaisance "pop art," and partly because it doesn't carry the baggage that Da Vinci's name carries. )

Obviously, if you are playing IF, that's an exception, but it's also a tiny niche now (though it used to be a major form).