The Decline of Fiction In Video Games 197
Speaking to Eurogamer, art maestro (and visual design director of upcoming stealth/action game Dishonored) Victor Antonov put into words what many gamers have been feeling about the gaming industry of late:
"It's been a poor, poor five years for fiction in the video game industry. There have been too many sequels, and too many established IPs that have been ruling the market. And a lot of them are war games. And they're great projects and great entertainment, but there's a lack of variety today. So, when you step out of this established genre, people cannot grasp it, or the press tries to find a match. ... We were always waiting for the next generation of great worlds or great graphics. Well, great graphics came; the worlds that came with these graphics are not up to the level of the graphics. ... Games should sort of split up and specialize and assume that there's such a thing as genre, and they shouldn't try to please everybody at the same time and try to make easy, diluted projects. Let's go for intensity and quality."
Indie games! (Score:5, Informative)
Fixed URLs... (Score:5, Informative)
Indie Gala [indiegala.com]
Indie Royale [indieroyale.com]
Be Mine [groupees.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fixed URLs... (Score:5, Interesting)
Far Cry I with AI that would flank
This!
I remember the first time the soldiers in front of me were laying down suppressing fire as two more were rapidly making a wide pincer move to get to my flank. I was crying the tears of joy! After all the useless, pointless bots that only knew how to run towards you and died in the hundreds, I finally had a game where developers actually focused on AI. Fear had good AI as well unfortunately you couldn't get the full appreciation of it because all the environments were so closed in that there wasn't much area to show off manuverability. Hell, the reason Half Life 1 was so damn awesome was because of the AI of the grunts.
And then... The focus on AI died as if it was a brief fad. FPS returned to being fancy graphical demos with gameplay equivalent of Quake 2. Worse: Quick Time Events just became extremely common!
I just can't comprehend why. Is it because the focus now is on casual gamers and they compain about the extra difficulty of the AI? Surely you can just add dificulty levels that adjusts damage and health of enemies instead of removing all the intelligence altogether!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fixed URLs... (Score:2)
Borderlands 2. Far Cry 3. Team Fortress 2. Left 4 Dead. DayZ/ArmA. Crysis.
There's still plenty of solid FPS, you just need to dig a little further than your local GameStop (which, I'll agree, gives a depressing perspective of the gaming landscape in general).
If you want indie titles, look at ArmA again, then perhaps Hard Reset, which has a lengthy demo. The genre's not as developed because it takes a lot more resources than 2D/2.5D platformers and puzzle games.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Fixed URLs... (Score:2)
The last game where I actually gave a shat about MP was MechWarrior 4
If you liked that, then you should probably take a look at Mechwarrior Online (yes, just MP). It's currently in closed beta but founders can all start playing next month I think. The concern I have is I'm not sure how their free-to-play with premium options is going to balance out. Hopefully they lean more towards League of Legends but I'm feeling some WoT influence getting mixed in there.
Anyway, so far MWO closed beta has 6v6 with what I assume is matchmaking tonnage balancing (I hope). Victory is either elimination or base capture, no respawns. I'd expect more game types opening up over time. Mechlab is fairly functional at the moment, allows a fair amount of gear swapping, although some parts of the Mechs are restricted as far as weapon selection goes.
Re:Indie games! (Score:5, Funny)
A lot of them don't have any killing or violence so they don't count
Real games you have to kill
There's indie, and then there's indie (Score:2)
Re:There's indie, and then there's indie (Score:3)
That's my $.02, but YMMV.
Re:There's indie, and then there's indie (Score:2)
I think "indie" merely refers to the practice of a single company both producing and publishing their game.
If "indie" means the publisher owns the developer, then Nintendo is indie.
Whether they're alumni of Blizz/Activision/EA/Ubisoft or they've never worked on any gaming projects before, the only difference may be the amount of capital invested in the project.
That and establishment alumni have a lot easier time selling games in certain genres because establishment alumni have a lot easier time getting onto the consoles with which these genres are traditionally associated.
Re:There's indie, and then there's indie (Score:2)
Regardless of their levels of experience, it takes money to make money. Veteran industry people usually have a nice nest egg to utilize, whereas someone just breaking into the industry may not have that luxury.
Re:There's indie, and then there's indie (Score:2)
Re:Indie games! (Score:5, Informative)
unfair share of the dollars spent.
Unfair is probably the wrong word. I can like a lot of different games, but I know what to expect if I buy a call of duty, fifa, the sims, wow expansions, Battlefield etc. I'm willing to shell out money for those, in many cases more money than I otherwise would, because even without playing them I have a fairly good sense of what I'm going to get. Some of those big titles make a lot of money because they have huge production quality. If you want 200 hours of voice acting (think Star Wars the Old Republic) that's going to cost an astronomical amount of money, or full motion capture, licensed images (vehicles items etc.). Going with that is huge advertising budgets, if you want to sell your game that you spent 60 -100 million dollars to make it's likely to pay off to spend 200 million on advertising because people need to know when your game is going to be out, you want them to buy it day 1 before they can pirate it etc. etc. etc.
Kingdoms of Amalaur, which I just finally, got around to finishing, was a new IP, with a relatively overall standard fantasy setting (partly because they hired people who have defined the fantasy genre lately). But it still only sold about 1.5 million copies. That would be a good title for some people, but not for the production quality and tools they had, and the business risk Shilling was taking, and so they're out of business and on the hook for significant debts. The game was well reviewed, it plays reasonably well, it has good production quality, in all respects it is objectively a decent game, but it still didn't make enough money.
If you want to innovate the place to do that is mobile. The barrier to entry is very very low, since apple and google don't have onerous rules like sony and nintendo, but even in the mobile space odds are good (really good, like 90% or more good) that you'll not make any money on a particular title. Indie PC titles are the next step up from that, but you have to be big enough to get listed on steam to have a chance, and then the next step up from that would be the PSN/XBLA type stores (where your sales may not be better than Steam, but you have to go through the Sony/MS certification process which is much more stringent than Steam).
Either way, as with the movie business, there's always some innovation in the games business, but a lot of those plans fail to make money unless you engage in the well oiled machine of hollywood accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting). Tera online seems to managing to hold it together for the moment, but no one really wants to end up like 38 studios and Curt Schilling, so the only serious risks taken are in small titles where if you loose 90% of your investment you're out 20K and you aren't out everything for the rest of your life. It's a down economy, no one wants to risk large amounts of money when you can't make any good predictions on sales. SWTOR which is probably the biggest trainwreck financially in the games business lately still sold something like 2 million copies - they just can't seem to maintain big subscriber numbers, but they got good opening sales, which I'm sure they were reasonably able to predict based on the KOTOR franchise and so on.
If big publishers had more risky games on the side, where the big projects funded more risky ones it might appear more 'fair', but that would cost them a lot of money.
Re:Indie games! (Score:3)
If Curt had ditched the MMO idea beyond just future plans, it is unlikely that 38 studios would have crashed and burned. They should have put out multiple games with the same IP before even building any of the MMO assets or hiring a team for it.
Re:Indie games! (Score:3)
Except that doing that they'd have been looking at an MMO in 2020. Depends on how much money you can borrow and from where. Clearly they thought they were going to sell a lot more than 1.5 million units of Kingdoms of Amalaur.
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
I'm not a hardcore gamer by any standard, but I do like sometime to get some beer and spend several hours (or the whole weekend :) ) playing a good game. The thing is, since I do this rarely, I really-really don't want to be disappointed. I want to be sure the game will be good, I don't want to experiment. So, I buy only well known established titles: Fallout, Call of Duty, Diablo. Again, since I do it only now and then, paying $60 for a game is no big deal.
What I really miss is the X-Com: UFO-style turn based strategies. I know there are some of the replicas (sort of) out there, but none of them even approaches the "X-Com: UFO Defence" in terms of gameplay. X-Com: Apocalypse was nice upgrade of the graphics and even had some gameplay improvements, but after that all sequels and clones kinda lost the point.
Re:Indie games! (Score:4, Informative)
Were you aware that there's a new X-Com: Enemy Unknown game coming out this October from Firaxis (Sid Meyer's company, the ones who make Civilization).
From what I've seen it looks pretty true to the original game's play. As a fan of the first couple X-com games I'm really looking forward to it.
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
I think that's where a mix of real time and turn based works well. Turn based combat, but real time running around out of combat. It was tedious to move around 20 squad members looking for something while turn based.
E.G. See jagged alliance. (Which has a remake out at the moment).
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
There's a jagged alliance remake available, it's pretty decent. It's not quite Xcom (though you can buy that from GoG.com if you want it, or gamersgate, or steam).
Re:Indie games! (Score:2)
About the voice acting to production cost point:
That's actually a very interesting point of view. The big worlds: Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, Chrono, Suikoden, etc were all inspired in an age where story telling was actually cheap compared to trying to re optimise some ai/networking/gameplay stack and cram it onto the CPUs cache. Now the cheap thing is building on existing asset portfolios while making bullets rush out of barrels while utilising some standardised AI engine.. And that new thing actually even sells. As more and more people get into gaming the curiosity vanishes and is replaced by demands of instant rewards.
While a lot of people have mentioned the plethora of good indie games, which is correct if you judge the games from their gameplay mechanics, I still fail to find games that excel in things like art direction and story telling.
(Note that while I do game and mostly on indie I'm not hardcore nor doing extensive research on gaming)
Re:Indie games! (Score:3)
Indeed (Score:2)
now where is my THEME HOSPITAL 2?
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
there have been many great stories. And there is no reason a sequel can't also be a great story.
Skyrim, Uncharted, Max Payne, Portal, Portal 2, Half-life EP 2, Dragon Age. ON and on.
Re:BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Stories in video games suck, at least when the game tries to make me care about them. When I'm playing a video game, I don't need to know why the bad guys are the bad guys, I just need to know where they are.
Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BS (Score:2)
And some people play checkers with chess pieces so they look smarter.
(this is paraphrased from @MrGeorgeWallace)
Re:BS (Score:2)
Chess is probably the oldest war game ever made. It's an epic battle between the armies of the white and the armies of the black. If you have enough imagination you can even imagine what's really going on.
Not sure about checkers though.
IE, the plot of even the barest FPS.
Re:BS (Score:5, Funny)
Translated into English: Look at me! Look at me! I've got an opinion!
BS-First Person Porn. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course just like people watch porn...for the story.
Re:BS (Score:3, Insightful)
I've played the game "Shoot the cyberdemon until it dies!" plenty of times. I'm more than just a bit tired of those games honestly. A game that makes me care about its characters gets a lot of my attention.
Re:BS (Score:3)
Stories in video games suck, at least when the game tries to make me care about them. When I'm playing a video game, I don't need to know why the bad guys are the bad guys
A large number of games, such as Heavy Rain [wikipedia.org] would disagree. A good story can significantly enhance gaming experience.
Re:BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Heavy Rain is a fantastic example. But then again, I also thoroughly enjoyed FEAR2 for the semi-hidden documents along the way that explained the back-story of what was going on. There was actually a lot of thought put into it. I say FEAR2 because the first and third were a lot less well flushed out I found.
In fact, if I'm going to play a good game that tells a good story and is fun and looks and sounds great, in general its a PS3 game like Heavy Rain, R&C, Uncharted ... I'll throw a bone to Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, and God of War too.
Re:BS (Score:2)
I'm the exact opposite. I get rapidly bored of shooting random enemies for no reason. If I wanted to do that, I'd be playing space invaders. I play video games primarily for the entertainment of the progression -- a good story, like in Uncharted or even the silly but well developed plots of Ratchet and Clank games make a huge difference from something mediocre. I picked console games specifically because I haven't seen real innovation in the story telling video game on PCs in a long time. Not since Wing Commander and Privateer (I'll except some RPGs, but by and large, those are pretty campy).
Re:BS (Score:2)
You have 5 controls; Forward, Backward, Strafe Left, Strafe Right, and Zoom. You walk around an island, and a narrator tells you a story. It's not "fun" but it's certainly very enjoyable, like reading a good book.
I find CoD, Battlefield X, Medal of Honour etc to be repetitive and boring. It's all about watching the numbers grow; More damage, more accuracy, higher RoF, more armour, more recoil compensation, more sprint, more ammo in the clip, faster mag changes... You're playing Accounting with motion blur and blood sprays. Yawn.
Re:BS (Score:2)
Re:BS (Score:2)
Re:BS (Score:2)
I haven't played any of these, but my kids/wife have. I've watched bits here and there.
Skyrim, Fable and Dragon Age and one you didn't mention, Kingdoms of Amulor (sp) are all similar and formulaic.
I would prefer (if I played the games) Mass Effect series because it is a space shooter game, with RPG bits tossed in. And at least the RPG bits carry over from one game to the next.
Re:BS (Score:4, Insightful)
What? "They should stop making games like X, they should make games like Y, but I wouldn't play it anyway."
The games you mention are not similar, apart from the fact they're all RPGs. Just because you looked over someone's shoulder and they look similar, does not make them similar (though since they are split between first and third person, they don't even look the same). I know I personally would probably hate 2 of those games, but enjoy the other 2, because of their substantially different gameplay.
I loved Witcher and Witcher 2 (Score:2)
Re:I loved Witcher and Witcher 2 (Score:2)
Yes, both are fantastic games. I love that they are aimed at a mature audience. It is nice to see that there are game developers that still take risks.
Looks like someone... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Bioshock
-Bastion
-Portal
-Braid
-Alan Wake
-The Secret World (just released!)
And that's just the big, well-known titles. I'm sure if you start reading a quality gaming blog like Rock Paper Shotgun you'll be up-to-date on some great indie titles as well in no time at all, sir. (also take a look at things like the Humble Indie Bundle, sometimes these bundles contain really well written adventure games (and they always contain games with Linux support)
We've also seen the resurrection of franchises like Fallout, and Deus Ex, while not having extremely well written dialogue (with the possible exception of Fallout: New Vegas, which was made by Obsidian instead of Bethesda), they are still worth playing for the world and the story the players themselves can write through their actions.
Re:Looks like someone... (Score:2)
Re:Looks like someone... (Score:5, Informative)
Portal is set in the same universe as HL, but you can only tell by small references here and there (like in the Still Alive song). It could set it in a completely different universe without changing almost anything: all the characters, sets and gameplay are original.
Re:Looks like someone... (Score:2)
However, there is this nagging feeling to me at least that the narrative feels built around the portal game mechanic, rather than the other way around. I think Valve succeeded wildly in telling a story with Portal as well as Portal 2, but it's clear where they started.
But that's how it should be! It's what makes it feel a game with a great story rather than a movie with annoying interactive interludes.
Re:Looks like someone... (Score:3)
-Batman: Arkham Asylum/City
-Mass Effect
-Dead Space
-I Am Alive
-Red Dead Redemption
-Assassin's Creed
-Uncharted
-and many more
a lot of people will disagree with me, but i also enjoyed the stories in the Hitman series, Splinter Cell series (Double Agent and Conviction were good, almost great, imo) and Max Payne series. even God of War and Darksiders had enough story to make the hack-and-slash more interesting. Gears of War wasn't bad either once you look past all the macho tropes. **spoiler** it had a cliche "you created your enemies and never knew it" ending **spoiler** but it was enough to keep me from asking why bother playing it. it was meant to be over the top. Resident Evil is a good example of enjoyable, over-the-top storytelling.
there's a common misconception that story = character development. but with the interactive medium, there's value in leaving a void in the protagonist for the player to fill with themselves. in a written story, the story isn't about an alternate you having a crazy exhilarating experience. in a gaming story, it's perfectly ok for the story to be about a series of events with you providing the character aspect by playing it.
there are basically 4 types of story subjects: a concept, a character, a place, and an event. any one of these 4 can be the main subject of the story. it doesn't always have to be a character. most video game stories are concept or event stories. Dead Space is a concept story. it doesn't matter who's doing the plasma cutting, the big draw is what the fuck is up with the marker, and what's this shit about humans created it? Darksiders is about the environment. the purpose is to explore this strange version of reality while your character tries to make it right. the story is over when the place changes or the character leaves it. Fallout was about events. in Fallout 3 there's all kinds of sub-plots like the character's father and exploring the wasteland after coming out of a vault. but since the outcomes of the game change based on your choices and actions, the most important thing about the ending is what set of events did your choices manifest? the story ends when you've exhausted your ability to affect new events.
some games work really well partly because the story is so cheesy, cliche and predictable, like Driver: San Francisco. some games are nothing but story, whether literally (e.g.,The Walking Dead or Heavy Rain) or figuratively (e.g., Final Fantasy or Fallout 3/New Vegas). in those kinds of games you either can't go off on your own outside the story, or you don't really want to. there was an appeal to riding horses aimlessly around the old west shooting sheriffs and wolves in RDD. i never really felt like taking on super mutants or deathclaws for the fun of it in Fallout. if i have spare time in a game like Fallout, i want to see alternate outcomes to the massive story they provide. for some games, a deep story can just get in the way of having fun. for other games, it's the only way to have it. i don't think there's a dearth of storytelling in games, but people like david jaffe don't help when they try to speak for the whole game developer community.
"Why the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually, been the worst medium to express philosophy and story and narrative? Why wouldn't you write a book? Why wouldn't you make a movie? Why wouldn't you go on a blog? Why wouldn't you run for fucking office? Instead, to me, it's the equivalent of being one of the world's best chefs and instead of working at a four or five-star restaurant, you choose to ply your trade at McDonald's. It doesn't make any sense." -- david jaffe
if you have to ask, you'll never know...
Re:Looks like someone... (Score:2)
You've forgotten perhaps one of the best-written games in a long time: The Witcher 2. One of the best RPGs of the last five years for sure.
You play the game for the story. Saying story doesn't matter is ridiculously shortsighted.
Secret World (Score:2)
All I know is I'm having more fun discovering stuff in that game, and uncovering the storyline, than i've had in a game in some time, including single player games. As for guild wars 2, I honestly have no desire to play it, but good for them, i'm sure they'll draw the people that like that kind of thing.
How about gameplay? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the bad aspects of modern gaming is games becoming interactive DVDs. Press X, beat the bad guy and earn the privilege of watching a half-hour cutscene that tells you to press O to defeat the next boss to watch the next cutscene.
Create games that are engrossing with gameplay and don't require much of an investment on the behalf of the player.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can blame that model on JRPGs -- freedom of choice is taken away because like to pretend their narrative is supposed to the focused -- but they forgot the first rule -- you are making a fucking game, NOT a movie.
As Chris Hecker recently said
"It annoys me when people focus on the linear content in games, rather than the gameplay. We are always going to be shitty movies if we keep emphasizing that direction."
http://kotaku.com/5923134/weve-got--jonathan-blow-the-witness-braid-and-chris-hecker-spy-party-here-to-answer-your-best-questions [kotaku.com]
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
If there is linear content, I'd personally prefer that both it AND the gameplay be good =)
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
Actually, the japanese make games that are essentially visual novels, and those games are very good if you accept them for what they are.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:3)
I disagree to some extent. For one, I can't stand the alternative which is for the story to not take place at all or make me hunt for it.
I like games but after maybe an hour of a single player game I'm just bored of the gameplay mechanic and want to know how the story is going to end. The only reason I've ever finished a single player campaign is for the narrative. If there is no narrative I care about--give me multi-player so that I can at least play against proper opponents and the satisfaction of defeating human beings.
It's not competitive in my opinion if I beat a computer. It's like playing a board game against a 6 year old. You might win--you might lose but you don't feel a sense of pride or satisfaction if you do win. Every victory has an asterisk.
On the other hand I'll wade through the boredom of a game to see the "END". If the game has no end then I won't have much of a motivation to keep going. I don't feel the slightest bit of interest in WOW for that reason. There's no "Winning". There's no catharsis or victory--it's an endless grind which you only abandon but never overcome.
I want to know what secret it is that my parents died to protect or what have you.
Even games like Mass Effect which I was extremely engaged in had such a non-linear story line that I eventually got bored doing stupid pointless side-quests until I lost interest. "What you want me to perform a census of every creature in the galaxy? Well as a completionist I feel compelled to help you with your stupid inane task."
A story with too many branching and peripheral paths inevitably ends up having a bunch of filler crap--with no way to tell what is what. On the other hand a game where you are compelled to move to the next point is often better edited and refined.
Imagine what a movie would be like if you watched all 30 takes of every scene. It would be boring and stupid.
There should be just enough freedom so that you feel free and have room to get immersed and a part of the world--but then have a very clear and concise story path. Games should take a lesson from Dungeons and Dragons--you have a story and your DM will keep you moving forward. He's not going to be like "hello party, would you like to deliver this letter to my cousin in stonebrook?" No, they're hopefully smart enough to constantly filter out all the meaningless shit and no matter what choice you make--eventually end up where you need to go.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:4, Interesting)
All I really want is a fun game that is:
A) challenging
B) doesn't require much investment
C) Is rewarding
D) has enough content to justify its price
Today it seems like the focus is either on the (really) hardcore gamer or casual non-gamers.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real shame is the decline of the adventure genre, which derived from interactive fiction, which was all about story. The best adventure games told stories through their gameplay, with puzzles making sense within the plot, and advancing the plot through the solving of puzzles. If you want to see how to tell a story though a game, go back and look at games like Secret of Monkey Island, Loom, Quest for Glory, or Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
I heard the Walking Dead video game series (released as episodes) is a good recent example of interactive fiction, with the story being shaped by your decisions.
I've only played a couple of minutes, but it seemed decent.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
The real shame is the decline of the adventure genre, which derived from interactive fiction, which was all about story.
A great genre that engages your imagination. These modern games in question are obviously not inspired by the art of storytelling.
Its more like boilerplate text they use to glue cutscenes.
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
Good thing Double Fine Adventure has kicked up a bit of a frenzy then! On top of that, I've also seen a new Leisure Suit Larry and a new Tex Murphy game, plus something from the guys behind Space Quest. Also, Jane Jensen, the creator of the Gabriel Knight series, has successfully funded Moebius, which is a spiritual successor to the beloved franchise.
And need I remind you that DFA is made by Ron Gilbert, of Monkey Island fame, and Tim Schafer, the brains behind Grim Fandango?
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
Fantastic game, but holy SHIT it wasted a lot of time with cutscenes...
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
Re:How about gameplay? (Score:2)
They exist, you just need to look a little further.
If you want harder, more challenging, more interactive games, you have many choices: spectacle fighter Bayonetta comes to mind, or precise platformer Super Meat Boy, or ridiculously tough action game Dark Souls, or even SpaceChem if puzzles are your thing. There's the extremely unforgiving strategy game AI War: Fleet Command. There's indie turn-based tactics game Frozen Synapse. There's hard as nails tower defence game Revenge of the Titans. There's unforgiving tactics game Atom Zombie Smasher. There's Dungeons of Dredmor, with its typical roguelike difficulty. There's "embodiment of a steep learning curve" EVE Online.
If all you're looking at is the top 5 console games, then yes, chances are people who play those games are not necessarily looking for a tough and complex experience. That doesn't mean there exists no game catering to that.
Where was the rise of fiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every generation complains about the same thing: too many sequels, not enough original properties. I mean, 5 years later we will be looking back and looking at this generation with longing.
Re:Where was the rise of fiction? (Score:2)
Seriously. Ms Pac Man? Donkey Kong Junior? Asteroids Deluxe?! Race Drivin'? Quit rehashing the same old mythoses over and over again! We've already seen those worlds|universes, new PoVs or not.
The myth of the story. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The myth of the story. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I *do* get the joke, (no whooshes please, it's lame.) This is a false comparison.
You are compairing "superfiscial plot with sparkly graphics: then" with "superfiscial plot and sparkly graphics:now".
You should compare "text mode story adventure game" against "pac man", and "massively open ended plot games, like daggerfall (mid 90s, has different, but related endings)" against "doom and duke nukem".
As the article points out, there aren't many of the "story focused" games out there. He pines for "text adventure" narrative depth, but with "wow, the boobies jiggle when she walks!" Hyper-realistic art assets of the gutless shooters and flat fantasy titles.
He is lamenting that you don't see both together.
Re:The myth of the story. (Score:3)
Games today have abandoned story and character development for fancy graphics. Gone are the rich and nuanced tapestries of MarioKart and Gradius. The complex character development of super punchout and the beautifully crafted narrative of Earthworm Jim.
I strongly disagree. Games like Angry Birds with it's Romeo and Juliet story, without the Juliet, explore very deep themes like how to I angle this shot to take out the pig in the back. The birds and pigs are obviously the Capulets and Montague fighting a feud that can only end in tragedy, and a lot of bruised pigs.
Re:The myth of the story. (Score:2)
Romeo and Frittata, as it were.
This is cyclical.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Happens to every platform of gaming. Arcade Games, Consoles, PC's, etc...
In the early days of Arcade Games, every game was unique (Asteroids, Donkey Kong, Pac Man, Robotron). As games stood out as top money makers, they started emulating them. Why risk a new idea, when an existing one is close to a sure thing? The longer the platform is around the less unique the games will become. Go into any modern Arcade (that is still open), and you're going to find that 90% of the games fall into Drivers, Fighters, Shooters. With maybe a couple games outside of that.
Arcade genres (Score:2)
Go into any modern Arcade (that is still open), and you're going to find that 90% of the games fall into Drivers, Fighters, Shooters.
I see redemption games taking over. But driving, light gun shooting, and dancing are popular because they use input devices that a lot of people don't have, and fighting is popular because of the dynamics of in-person competition that anonymous online multiplayer can't match.
I can't agree, Victor (Score:5, Funny)
"It's been a poor, poor five years for fiction in the video game industry...."
Nonsense, Victor. Gaming magazine reviews have raised High Fantasy to an unprecedented new art form, and DRM has been more gruesome and compelling than the best Horror gaming.
Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
And again, there are a lot of books and various fan-art about Warcraft universe - not as much as DnD or even Warhammer, but still. If WoW had no soul, it wouldn't attract so much artists. Hell, this game even has it's own rock-band (ETC 90L) - not so many titles can say that.
This has been perpetually argued since 3d (Score:2)
Well, great graphics came; the worlds that came with these graphics are not up to the level of the graphics.
It doesn't make any sense that game stories should suddenly get more complicated because graphics got better.
It used to be that games with the best/most original gameplay and story would be the gems that stood out in review and among peers. Now that graphics came into its own as a factor of quality, there are other games that stand out without necessarily having the best gameplay. Which means you might have to look for games you want to play instead of just taking the highest-rated games. But they're there.
Besides that, it's yet another thing in life that seems to have gotten worse since the better years which by no coincidence always happen to be the same time for everyone -when we were young and had all the time in the world to play every game exhaustively and repetitively to a mastery of every move, path, and secret.
We're gettin' old. Cure that and you'll cure Video-Games-are-Getting-Worse Syndrome.
Non-fiction Art Games (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Non-fiction Art Games (Score:4, Informative)
They are definitely fiction. Just not Hollywood-style fictions or cinematic ones.
Re:Non-fiction Art Games (Score:2)
Re:Non-fiction Art Games (Score:2)
Haven't played Journey yet, but the other two are awesome!
You may want to also check out:
Nihilumbra (blend between Limbo and Portal 2)
Portal 2
Sleep is Death
The Binding of Isaac
Is it any wonder? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not surprised by the state of the industry. The decline began a few years ago when a new generation of players chose war/battle/FPS games over First Person Action games (What's FPA? Think Myst, kids. If you don't know what that is, you know where to look).
In my opinion, war-like gaming appeals to a base survival and agression instinct and can indeed be involving, but eventually becomes numbing and the player is unsatisfied until another game provides a stronger instinctual reaction, which becomes more and more difficult to achieve. As this happens, interest falls off. I've seen it happen to people time and time again.
Storyline-based gaming based primarily on a world and interactions within that world activates more of the creative portion of the mind, digging out the player's imagination from under the clutter that schooling and obsessive parenting buried it under. The abilities of the imagination are endless and a properly planned First Person Action game uses as much of the player's imagination as it does game mechanics, ensuring that the user is partially responsible for creating their own experience.
For the most part, I think the folks at Frictional Games [frictionalgames.com] might understand how to use the best of both better than anybody. While their games may not appeal to today's most vehement FPS gamers, once those same people reach an insurmountable numbness with their own genre, those who try the kind of product Frictional puts out could find some comfort, as Frictional builds on a mix of both survival instinct and imagination.
Re:Is it any wonder? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the original Counter-Strike (released in 1999) is still the 4th most played game on Steam nowadays. So much for interest falling off.
Re:Is it any wonder? (Score:2)
The decline began a few years ago when a new generation of players chose war/battle/FPS games over First Person Action games
I also mourn the disappearance of turn based games (i.e. X-COM-like). Nowdays a game is considered "turn based" if you can easily pause it at any time.
Re:Is it any wonder? (Score:2)
Most adventure games had illogical puzzles. This killed them, not another genre. Not everyone wants to have to work out that if you ram the car into the tree the bird flies off and the cat chases it which knocks a pot off a window ledge landing on a dog making it unconscious so you can take the snot out of its nose to use as glue on your temporary security card etc etc. That is not fun that is just stupid.
Just like movies. (Score:3)
Right now the cost of game development makes it hard to play to a smaller market. The major distributors and studios are loath to invest in something that won't appeal to the largest market possible. Indie games are starting to get some traction but it's a long way off. The games industry is the same boat the movie industry was in the 50s. The big studios control and squeeze every last dime out of the product, and they don't take chances on anything.
What we need are a few star developers to step in and push for a larger piece of the pie and then spread that around to indie stuff. Just like the bigwigs in hollywood do right now. Those multi-million dollar pay-cheques the stars get don't all go into their pockets, a lot goes to niche projects
Re:Just like movies. (Score:2)
What we need are a few star developers to step in and push for a larger piece of the pie and then spread that around to indie stuff.
I don't know if that will work. The major asset the game companies have isn't their 'star' developers (who is a star developer now?), it's their libraries. All of the major game companies have a good set of 3D game libraries that lets lesser programmers create a game, that a non-programmer designs. So if one programmer decides to become John Romero, he will probably end up like John Romero.
One Word: Journey (Score:2)
Although there is plenty to lament that games are failing in story there are still bright spots. Plenty of smaller games seem to be able to focus on crafting story and environments that the AAA games can't seem to afford to spend time on. In particular, "Journey" is one of the first games in a long long long time where I cared that another character "died" let alone that other character was a player. Just this one game is a demonstration of the power of a well crafted game without blowing a big budget and it gives me hope that developers still strive for story.
Nothing really changes, always has been like that (Score:2)
And on and on. That was 30 years ago! Its kind of funny what happens when something makes a lot of money... a sequel is made. Books, movies, games, tv series. Its just the way it is. And yet, new games and stories still come out.
But you know what? People WANT sequels, they want more of a good thing. I just spent some money on Defense Grid 2 kickstarter as I want more Defense Grid.
I like new stories, but I like sequels too. I'm still waiting for Half Life 3
Good writing is hard (Score:2)
I was put off ever playing Heavy Rain when I learned that there's only one killer. What are you going to do - play it twice and act surprised at the ending? I'm sure it would have been technically possible to set the game up so in each new game the killer was any one of a number of possible suspects, but the amount of plot-tracking that would require means it didn't make it into the finished game.
Some games do an excellent job of combining story and plot (which aren't the same thing). Half-Life and its sequels all have a very simple plot - escape, but the story of how you go about it is beautifully detailed. Both Witcher games do an amazing job, in that the consequences of your actions aren't always visible until much, much later. Mass Effect 1 had a good try, and all the Geneforge games have huge, rich backstories running through them. But the player should drive the story, not just be subjected to large arbitrary chunks of it for no reason as in MGS4.
Video games have the same capacity for storytelling as any other entertainment medium, but the producers have to be prepared to pay for it on creation, and the public have to be prepared to pay for it on delivery.
Maybe this guy should learn English (Score:3, Funny)
The article is torture to read but the poor sap seems unable to grasp that the word fiction only means something is fictional. It doesn't mean fantasy, it doesn't mean sci-fi (these are in fact sub categories of fiction) and it most certainly does NOT mean good.
Even harlequin and 10 cents western novel is fiction. So are some of the greatest literary works. Fiction = fiction good or bad. And so, modern computer games have plenty of fiction. "Harry went to work", as long as I am not talking about a real Harry and even then it could be fiction if Harry didn't go to work.
And a sequel is just as much fiction as the original. Maybe he meant there isn't enough originality? What did he work on? A stealth action game? Yawn, been done to DEATH!
Overview
You are the once-trusted bodyguard of the Empress. Framed for her murder and driven by revenge, you must become an infamous assassin, known only by the disturbing mask that has become your calling card.
As you navigate a world torn apart by plague and oppressed by a government armed with strange new technologies, the truth behind your betrayal is as murky as the waters surrounding the city.
The choices you make will determine the fate of the world, but no matter what happens your old life is gone forever.
I get what he means. No originality whatsoever. It is a blessing the lead isn't suffering from amnesia. Let me guess, at one point you are captured and loose all your weapons?
LoZ: Skyward Sword, Xenoblade Chronicles & (Score:2)
The Last Story (which I have on pre-order)....
Xenoblade in particular was very engaging story-wise, blending Norse Myth, Greek Philosophy and science fiction elements (readers of Jack Chalker in particular will recognize elements).
William
Same for movies, books, moves, music (Score:3)
Bottom line is that content "creators" have adopted a business model where cloning shit that has a proven track record of success is preferred over venturing into new territories to build a new franchise or even just create that one-off masterpiece.
Of course the biggest issue is that society (or mostly teenagers) gobbles up this shit and makes it profitable.
This is why 9 out of 10 movies are pure derivative garbage
This is why every game is a sequel to a previous game
This is why every book is about vampires, werewolves or has dragons.
This is why every TV show is about crime scene investigation
There is a general lack of creativity in Hollywood, and by extension, ALL entertainment industries. When you can produce cookie-cuter products that make gobs of money because their is a market of addled minds craving nothing new, why even bother attempting at something that might fail just to have integrity?
Any writer, director or producer of and entertainment that wants to maintain any sort of creative integrity should never work on a sequel or prequel or take on a project that involves similar IP to other franchises. I don't care who you are in the industry, produce a sequel, prequel, remake, or copying someone else's IP is just lazy and overtly greedy.
Re:I probably sound like I have ADD... but (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at Final Fantasy VII, the storyline is what really made it all fit together.
Some games need no storyline to make it fun, for example, no one really questions why blocks are falling from the Soviet skies in Tetris, they just are. Same with Team Fortress 2. On the other hand, take away the story from most RPGs and adventure games and you are just some guy running around the world. Its a lot better to feel like you've just saved the world than it is that you just mowed down a bunch of enemies.
Re:I probably sound like I have ADD... but (Score:2)
Its a lot better to feel like you've just saved the world than it is that you just mowed down a bunch of enemies.
Not when you had to sit through fifteen hours of tedious, poorly-written, poorly-acted cut scenes to get to the ten minutes of actual gameplay along the way.
Re:I probably sound like I have ADD... but (Score:3)
That's ... kinda the point. That there needs to be a BETTER story TOGETHER with the good graphics.
Re:I probably sound like I have ADD... but (Score:2)
A video game that's trying to cram bad fiction down your throat is worse than a movie or book, because there's no editor saying that it needs to be cut for time or size constraints. The horrible authors are free to do whatever they like, and they do.
Re:I probably sound like I have ADD... but (Score:2)
I just want to blow things up or shoot imaginary people or fly planes or drive race cars or plan and manage beautiful cities without having to pay attention to a plot.
Oh and make it look and run great. More time/money needs to go into graphics and game optimization not some boring plot that 99% of the time gets skipped over in favor of getting back into action.
I don't see why you would be complaining. With the current state of the industry, you should be in heaven! However, for those of us with tastes for a great story and more depth, our choice is much more limited. Great games of our focus are few and far between. Thus we are complaining.
Re:does this not count? (Score:3)
Mass Effect, with its repetitive, unskippable cut-scenes, is the most boring game I've played in years. It's a bad ScyFy B-movie with a few interactive sections which try to pretend that you're not playing on rails (yes, you will go here and you will do something fscking stupid that you as a player would never choose to do, because that's THE STORY, you see).
Re:Case in point: Skyrim (Score:3)