noname2200 said:
Godot said:
I completely disagree with the article. Some games gameplay do not really connect to the story (GTA) but for most of them, you just have to forget that you are yourself and let yourself get lost in the story just like you would reading a book. It's not like all heroes in all the books are doing what you want them to do. |
Not to say that I agree with the article (I'm about 50/50 in that regard), but I do feel you've missed the author's point. The idea of the article isn't that all games suck at telling stories, it's that games are a unique and interactive medium, and that game developers are not taking advantage of these unique opportunities (and challenges) to tell a story in a way that does not fit any other medium. Instead, far too many of them are relying on the methods established by the traditional, passive media. Such as books, in which you accept the hero's actions because you have no say in the matter (short of using whiteout and a pen, that is...
The point of the article is that you shouldn't have to accept whatever rails the developer chooses to use in telling his story. Games, in contrast to books, T.V., theater, and other media, allow the user (listener, viewer, etc.) to decide in real time what will happen next. I personally enjoy letting other storytellers tell their story on their terms, just as I have to do in books and most present games. But wouldn't it be neat if, say, instead of going along with Aeris you made Cloud ignore her and continue with the Resistance, and as a result you get an entirely different story? Or if you didn't make your hero fall for the obvious trap, and consequently took the game in an entirely new direction?
Games are the only real medium in which the end user can make these choices in realtime. The author simply wants more developers to realize this, and take advantage of that fact. I see nothing wrong with this (from a user's perspective. I'd imagine developers have a different take...).
|
