BW_JP on 08 March 2010
| The Ghost of RubangB said: Hm, I agree and disagree with him at the same time. I'm confused. I'm a pure play mechanics type of nerd. I'm so pure play that I'm actually a fan of just abstract shapes in space (I love Tetris pretty much more than any narrative/cinematic games). Also, I love storytelling in every medium but gaming because "it hasn't been cracked yet." But... I firmly believe that the most important thing to happen to gaming is motion controls and not interactive storytelling. Once you interact with a story, you ruin it. A good story has a good ending. Any interaction whatsoever should CHANGE the ending. But games with multiple endings have 2 or 5 or 10 and turn into "good ending vs. bad ending" or "each fighter in the tournament gets their own ending" or "choose your own adventure but every ending is boring." Games with only 1 ending are usually the most interesting because that one ending is what they spent all their time on... but then it feels like the choices you made during the game don't actually matter because they only affected meaningless sidequests and not the real meat of the story. Until a brilliant writer/designer comes along and fixes that problem... I'll stick with Tetris. TL;DR They call it gameplay not storyplay. I like where Jaffe's going with this, but to me story breaks down whether I'm swinging an arm or pressing a button. |
Motion controls and interactive storytelling are two peaks of game design. they are both equally important.
Both of them have a long way to go. No platform has motion control that is true to the concept yet, just like no story telling has been perfected yet.
