Vertigo-X said:
You're true to your namesake.
I imagine the reason this was written is because the author was bored and wanted to get some feathers riled up. I mean, if you enjoy a game, shouldn't that be enough? If you don't, that's fine. No need to announce an opinion like it's more important than other people's.
|
I think you, along with many others in this thread, are misinterpreting the intent of the author here. It's not to say that the story of these games are bad and that it should have been done better. It's more of a realization that the stories told in electronic games today simply isn't as powerful as stories told in other media such as books, movies, tv-series, role-playing games, theater pieces, radio-shows...
This I feel is a fact. Electronic games are (with the current techniques) the worst possible medium for telling a story. There are very few games out there that can tell a story that will affect you other than on a very superficial level, if at all. The reason for the article, I assume, is to bring this problem to light as well as discuss its roots and possible solutions.
If you think about it, it seems kinda funny. Gaming should have a huge advantage over non-interactive media, simply because it allows the player to take an active part in the story. This is used to great advantage in role playing games. But when it comes to gaming, the supposed advantage becomes a huge drawback instead. The fact that games are interactive means that the traditional ways of storytelling looses their power.
Do we need good storytelling for games to be great? No.
Do storytelling decide how much we enjoy them? No.
Does this change the fact that storytelling in games sucks compared to non-interactive media? No.
I want a healthy discussion about how to improve the power of storytelling in games.
This is invisible text!
