Mechanics that you want

[Momo]

Customization is ass, and so is emphasis on gameplay over story, or even considering gameplay separate from story, when the best video games all manage to effortlessly merge the two components together.

You're completely delusional if you think Fire Emblem's story is worth a damn.

[General Banzai]

You're completely delusional if you think Fire Emblem's story is worth a damn.

You're completely delusional if you think that's what I was saying, but if you want to tango on that account, you'd first have to specify which FE you're referring to, and what you are comparing the story to in order to consider it not "worth a damn".

[bottlegnomes]

We're all well aware of your views on storytelling. But here's a question, if you only have the resources, be they time, money, whatever, to prioritize gameplay or story, which would you prioritize in a video game? If a game has shit gameplay, no one is going to play it, no matter how amazing the story is. If a game has amazing gameplay, but a shit story, a lot of people will still play it and just ignore the story. So, then the question is: if gameplay affects the game more than story, which is more important? I think it's pretty clear.

For a comparison that if you actually don't agree with, you're crazy, in movies, sometimes the director has to make a choice between special effects and getting "better" (read: more expensive) actors because he doesn't have the money for both. Now if he gets shit actors, no one, or at least not many, is going to see the movie even if the special effects and story are great. If he has awful special effect, people will probably cringe, but they'll deal with it because the rest of the movie is good. Look at the BBC for a real life example.

Now I'm not saying that a designer should neglect the story and just focus on gameplay because he doesn't care to do the extra work if he has the resources for both. But if you have to prioritize one, you should prioritize the thing that is more important to your medium, in the case of video games, gameplay.

Anyway, not every studio/project has the money to perfect both parts, so they're going to do the rational thing and skimp on story to focus on gameplay. So it really isn't a matter of the designers not caring about the story, at least in a fair number of cases, but more a case of them having to make sacrifices.

[Othin]

If a game has shit gameplay, no one is going to play it, no matter how amazing the story is.

Final Fantasy VI seems to be regarded rather highly.

[bottlegnomes]

Final Fantasy VI seems to be regarded rather highly.

I may not be very far into it, but FF6 hardly has shit gameplay. It may not be amazing, but it's far from terrible.

[Othin]

I may not be very far into it, but FF6 hardly has shit gameplay. It may not be amazing, but it's far from terrible.

You're right, it's not shit. Regardless, its gameplay turns out basic enough that any game should be able to have gameplay as good or better with little to no trouble. FFVI is regarded as a fantastic game, and indeed, I agree with that rating. If a game just needs gameplay as good as FFVI to get people to play it and appreciate the big picture, I hardly think gameplay needs to be an overwhelming focus for games where the story can make up for the gameplay's failings.

[Lord Raven]

You're completely delusional if you think Fire Emblem's story is worth a damn.

As much as Banzai annoys me, jesus fuck dude. I like Fire Emblem's story.

[Anouleth]

Banzai are you Navgtr??????

[General Banzai]

We're all well aware of your views on storytelling. But here's a question, if you only have the resources, be they time, money, whatever, to prioritize gameplay or story, which would you prioritize in a video game? If a game has shit gameplay, no one is going to play it, no matter how amazing the story is. If a game has amazing gameplay, but a shit story, a lot of people will still play it and just ignore the story. So, then the question is: if gameplay affects the game more than story, which is more important? I think it's pretty clear.

There! Exactly my point! The idea of seeing "story" and "gameplay" as separate entities to begin with is the first hurdle we have to leap.

Secondly, the idea of seeing "story" as a commodity to begin with is an issue. The greatest stories ever written were made by one person, working alone. In fact, more people tend to make a story worse, as they dilute the original creative vision, lead to artistic conflicts, etc. Hiring more writers is not a guaranteed way to make a better story; rather, it's the opposite. Stories aren't emphasized in the creation of video games typically because either

a) the consumer doesn't care/doesn't want to care (as in the case of most FPS/racer/beat-em-ups)

b) the consumer wants a very specific type of story that appeals only to them and nobody else (most JRPGs)

c) the notion that "story interferes with gameplay" (recent Miyamotos)

[Celice]

Story-telling will never be good in videogames because the actual telling is interrupted by gameplay. The less gameplay there is, the less often it sells worth anything (Siberia was pretty nice though...).

What you should be encouraging is deeper experiences in playing, one in which the atmosphere no only achieves functional characters and stories, but that also allows the player to access this without effort.

[zorbees]

gameplay > story

evidence: super mario bros 3

[General Banzai]

We're still thinking about this in the wrong way. Celice got close with his idea of "experiences" but I believe that those experiences can translate into story.

Let me pose an example of how I feel story and gameplay combine in terms of the Fire Emblem series. It comes in unit permadeath. The player's decisions as a tactician (which fill in for the tactical decisions of the main character) can be either cruel or benevolent. The player can decide whether to sacrifice units or restart until every character survives. Since the player's decisions are meant to be the lord's decisions this thus translates into character-building without the stupid, gameplay/story separating "karma system" or a series of prefabricated dialogue options. There is still a disconnect however; the story butts in and Ike is now a compassionate fellow again. But it's better than a lot of RPGs where the gameplay seems like random interludes between cutscenes.

Most of the good FE games try to frame this with the idea of a angel/devil system on the shoulder, typically using the Jeigan and the Morodof in the respective roles (in the case of FESS, Seth fills both roles; in PoR, it's Titania and Soren). Two lines of advice are given and the lord says something like "I'll decide", meaning of course that the player decides.

Other games do this merging of gameplay and story even better. See the Pikmin series, the Metroid Prime series, and some of the earlier LoZs.

[Anouleth]

The greatest stories ever written were made by one person, working alone. In fact, more people tend to make a story worse, as they dilute the original creative vision, lead to artistic conflicts, etc. Hiring more writers is not a guaranteed way to make a better story; rather, it's the opposite.

I don't really agree. I think that some of the greatest works of literature are based on real life events or experiences. For example, Charles Dickens' books are based on his own experiences of inequity and injustice in Victorian England, not on some "creative vision".

Edited January 26, 2012 by Anouleth

[Celice]

Other games do this merging of gameplay and story even better. See the Pikmin series, the Metroid Prime series, and some of the earlier LoZs.

The problem with Metroid and Zelda is that they didn't have stories. They had excuses for the gameplay to occur. Prime later on adopted more plot, but even then, it wasn't important beyond facilitating the gameplay.

Now Pikmin is both no different and entirely different, because its gameplay and story are one and the same. You are going through, and fulfilling the game. There's no facilitation between the player and the experience beyond a controller (barring, of course, design choices). I haven't played Psychonauts, but I think that's a very same experience, possibly the original Alice game on the PC that everyone raves about. It's these "together" steps that make the experience and experience, not cutting story and gameplay apart.

Small Worlds, I think is a fantastic example.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Celice

[Paperblade]

Correct me if I'm wrong: you expect a medium where there are already far too many characters to realistically flesh out to provide different characterization/dialogue paths for PCs based on the decisions that the player makes. A medium where the industry has hacks like whoever wrote Other M and whoever writes RPG dialogue (not even going to differentiate between J and W here)? An industry where creating a product requires a lot more resources (writer vs. writer/programmer/artist/musician + maybe design guy), and thus costs a lot more money, and as a result needs to cost/sell a lot more?

Sure, I guess it would be great if that were possible (I'm not a huge fan of "branching character decisions and routes!" because they're often done horribly because the choices tend to be "Donate to orphans" v. "Sacrifice the orphans to Satan").

[Snowy_One]

I think both are equally important. Good gameplay, bad story? FF:X-2. Good story, (relatively) Bad Gameplay : games like Mass Effect, Morrowind, Final Fantasy, and so forth depending on how you look at it/what you consider to be bad.

Anyways, customizable characters and story plot don't HAVE to be exclusive. Most of the changes are largely cosmetic and irrelevant to the story plot (It doesn't matter so much usually if someone had brown or black hair, or is a mage or swordfighter or not). However, I do think that going overboard can result in things being far too limiting in gameplay as certain factors would have to be worked around. Plus, it allows for min-maxing of stat-growths no matter how you try to line it up, which ALWAYS results in 'ultimate' character types.

[Lord Raven]

I think we should stop throwing around words like "good" and "bad" unless we want to provoke a shitstorm of fanboys (like me) who will totally disagree with you.

[Momo]

As much as Banzai annoys me, jesus fuck dude. I like Fire Emblem's story.

Would you say it's better than 95% of all video game writing, like Banzai said?

[dondon151]

That's kind of a non sequitur; Lord Raven doesn't have to agree with Banzai to like FE writing...

[General Banzai]

I don't really agree. I think that some of the greatest works of literature are based on real life events or experiences. For example, Charles Dickens' books are based on his own experiences of inequity and injustice in Victorian England, not on some "creative vision".

I didn't say shit about creative vision. I said one person. Charles Dickens may have based his writings off of a plethora of shared social experiences, but it's still one man writing. Shakespeare was one man writing. Milton was one man writing (while blind, no less). Name any good story and I can almost guarantee you it was written by one person.

The problem with Metroid and Zelda is that they didn't have stories. They had excuses for the gameplay to occur. Prime later on adopted more plot, but even then, it wasn't important beyond facilitating the gameplay.

Now Pikmin is both no different and entirely different, because its gameplay and story are one and the same. You are going through, and fulfilling the game. There's no facilitation between the player and the experience beyond a controller (barring, of course, design choices). I haven't played Psychonauts, but I think that's a very same experience, possibly the original Alice game on the PC that everyone raves about. It's these "together" steps that make the experience and experience, not cutting story and gameplay apart.

Small Worlds, I think is a fantastic example.

I would first disagree with you that early Zeldas and the Metroid Prime series don't have stories. I would instead argue that they don't have stories in the sense that we typically think of stories; i.e, like a movie or a book. My belief is that video games are an entirely new medium separate from movies and literature, or perhaps evolving upon movies and literature--a medium where the reader (in this sense the player) has an active role in the creation of the story.

I can think of no example where player/reader responses and reactions can influence the course of a story or the personality of a character except in video games. In before comparisons to choose-your-own-adventure novels, but those are by no means the same thing. A choose-your-own-adventure novel is more akin to the type of video game where there's a black or white karma system, or an Infinity Ward "three dialogue option" setup. But a video game can be much more than simply a series of prefabricated choices completely under the control of some omniscient author-figure which merely serve as an illusion (and not, I would say, a very good illusion) of depth.

Instead I would look at the original Legend of Zelda for an example, as it is one I feel most people here are familiar with. The authorial figure in LoZ, let's say Miyamoto, only tells half of the story. He puts in a basic plot architecture (as you say, an excuse for the gameplay to occur): Princess Zelda is kidnapped by the evil lord Ganon; you, the young hero, must collect pieces of the Triforce to gain the power to defeat Ganon and save Hyrule. A simple plot with only three real characters, no real plot developments, nothing at all save a strange old man's cryptic advice "It's dangerous to go alone / Here take this" upon given you your first weapon.

Player-Link, for Link truly is little more than an avatar for the player, then falls into a world with no other authorial input. That is not to say that, in the period between "Dangerous to go alone" and "Congratulations Link / You have saved Hyrule" the story just stops. Rather, the story becomes a living, breathing reflection of the player's own thoughts and feelings. Link, as I said before, is an avatar for the player. Most game heroes are: you don't say "Oh shit Link's about to die," you say "Oh shit I'm about to die." Games like RPGs tend to sever this player-character connection. "Eirika's about to die." "Locke's about to die one-shot Kefka." But in these early games, these Miyamoto-era games, the connection is masterfully created, perhaps by accident, through the use of silent protagonists, indistinct sprites (Link's face could be anyone's face), and the ability of the authorial figure to step back and let the player experience the world of the game for his or herself.

In a book or a movie, nothing can change. Everyone dies at the end of Titanic; watching in ten thousand times doesn't change that. But starting up a video game, the player already goes in with the knowledge that if they play well enough, the player-avatar won't die. Link has died millions of times in all the times people have played Legend of Zelda--but sometimes he doesn't. And who determines that? The player. Very rarely in games does the main character die at the end even if the player has beaten every objective perfectly. There are very rarely sad endings to games--and yet there are very frequently sad endings to games. "Game Over: Return of Ganon" from Zelda II. "Too Bad" from Super Mario Sunshine. "You and your friends are dead" from Friday the 13th the game. The list goes on and on.

But giving the player the power over life and death is not the only thing a video game allows which you won't find in books or movies. There are an infinite amount of story decisions that the player has the power to make, especially in an open game like Legend of Zelda. "Shall I go here or there? Will I fight this enemy or run away? Do I buy this item or that one?" And since Link says nothing, makes no expression, it's up to the player to fill in his emotions. Perhaps when you get to the boss of the first dungeon and see some giant unicorn dragon spitting fireballs you crap your pants. Or perhaps you say "I got this shit" and charge in swinging. There's a lot of talk of virtual reality, but virtual reality already exists in video games. You are Link, you are dressed in a green tunic, you must save Zelda and defeat Ganon. How you do so--and how you look at this quest--are all up to you.

That author/player relation is what truly distinguishes video games from any other mode of storytelling. Thus, saying LoZ or Metroid Prime "have no stories" is injust to those games. They have probably the best video game stories in existence.

Would you say it's better than 95% of all video game writing, like Banzai said?

Do note that writing does not equal storytelling.

[Momo]

That's kind of a non sequitur; Lord Raven doesn't have to agree with Banzai to like FE writing...

Well if he had said no, I would've said "Well I was mostly directing it at Banzai, because he's shown to have quite a bias for the series"

If he had said yes, I would've gone "You're delusional too"

Do note that writing does not equal storytelling.

Very true, but Fire Emblem's storytelling is worse than its writing.

[Celice]

Ah, the problem is however that it's not up to the player to unravel the story in those games. The player only enters a check point, in which text continues, and then the gameplay continues. It doesn't influence the story whatsoever. The player has virtually no control over the story, whereas in Pikmin, the story can only unfold with the help of the player. In these instances, the avatar is really the player. In Zelda, the player simply controls pieces which move through a preordained world. Nothing new arrives because of the player. They can certainly jerk around in different manners each time, but their influence is non-existent.

There needs to me more necessity in the player's contribution for the unfolding for a good experience to happen.

[General Banzai]

Very true, but Fire Emblem's storytelling is worse than its writing.

And it's writing, with a couple of exceptions, is quite good. At least compared to other video games.

[Momo]

I'd say with a couple of exceptions, the writing is pretty terrible and generic. The storytelling consists of static portraits throwing words at each other.

[General Banzai]

Ah, the problem is however that it's not up to the player to unravel the story in those games. The player only enters a check point, in which text continues, and then the gameplay continues. It doesn't influence the story whatsoever. The player has virtually no control over the story, whereas in Pikmin, the story can only unfold with the help of the player. In these instances, the avatar is really the player. In Zelda, the player simply controls pieces which move through a preordained world. Nothing new arrives because of the player. They can certainly jerk around in different manners each time, but their influence is non-existent.

There needs to me more necessity in the player's contribution for the unfolding for a good experience to happen.

It's a hyperbolic arc, or at least a series of hyperbolic arcs. Checkpoints, startpoints, endpoints--these are all just areas where the author's influence pokes through to the surface. LoZ, Metroid Prime, Pikmin, and a few other games muddle these points, conceal them, obscure them from view. They don't make a big show of them, like games with flashy cutscenes or sprawls of text.

Meanwhile, your claim that in Zelda the player just controls pieces which move is a gross oversimplification. In a book, the reader just sees a series of lines. But those pieces and those lines combine to create meaning for the reader/player. You say nothing new arrives because of the player but EVERYTHING new arrives from the player, save from the aforementioned points where the authorial influence sticks its head out the gopher hole for you to see.

I'd say with a couple of exceptions, the writing is pretty terrible and generic. The storytelling consists of static portraits throwing words at each other.

Well, then it's unfortunate you know nothing about writing.