By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Jaffe: ’storytelling not cracked properly yet’

Reasonable said:
Sorry guys, but ME has good storytelling for a videogame but pretty weak storytelling in context to other mediums.


But why do you need to compare to other mediums ?

storytelling in games isen't anything like movies or books. In fact, I believe great movies stories will be very weak in games context, simply because many tools used by scenarist are lost in games. 

VG storytellers must answer to very different constraints. The player control the pace of the game, not only when he plays, but also when he stops (not like watching TV episodes). Building intensity, emotional rythm, climax and such, is WAY harder (if not impossible). Some games run for 50+ hours and you have to keep things both interesting and clear. Many games allow a freedom that requiere fragmented story parts that can be assembled by the player in a non linear way (even if the outcome of the plot is forced) and that's something that doesn't really exist in movies.

VG, while they can learn some storytelling tricks from movies and books, should not try to follow the same path at all.

And let's not forget, as it was said in the original video, that you have two very different kind of "story-games". One is about telling the story of a character (Kratos for instance) to the player, the other about letting the player make its own story through an avatar. Once again, the means and ends are very different. What Jaffe said is very interesting, but IMO, doesn't apply to the two.

At some point, you can already see the "natal's slap" approach in ME2, when you can interrupt a scene with an instant action, and it works pretty well.

 



Around the Network
Cryoakira said:
Reasonable said:
Sorry guys, but ME has good storytelling for a videogame but pretty weak storytelling in context to other mediums.


But why do you need to compare to other mediums ?

storytelling in games isen't anything like movies or books. In fact, I believe great movies stories will be very weak in games context, simply because many tools used by scenarist are lost in games. 

VG storytellers must answer to very different constraints. The player control the pace of the game, not only when he plays, but also when he stops (not like watching TV episodes). Building intensity, emotional rythm, climax and such, is WAY harder (if not impossible). Some games run for 50+ hours and you have to keep things both interesting and clear. Many games allow a freedom that requiere fragmented story parts that can be assembled by the player in a non linear way (even if the outcome of the plot is forced) and that's something that doesn't really exist in movies.

VG, while they can learn some storytelling tricks from movies and books, should not try to follow the same path at all.

And let's not forget, as it was said in the original video, that you have two very different kind of "story-games". One is about telling the story of a character (Kratos for instance) to the player, the other about letting the player make its own story through an avatar. Once again, the means and ends are very different. What Jaffe said is very interesting, but IMO, doesn't apply to the two.

At some point, you can already see the "natal's slap" approach in ME2, when you can interrupt a scene with an instant action, and it works pretty well.

 

Games deserve to be compared to other media because they've try to hard to BE those other media. Some games still do it through mindless gameplay interrupted by long narrative sequences to move the story forward. Virtually no story progression happens in an interactive environment. This disjointed form of gaming is HORRIBLE at telling a story because the player is constantly being jerked from one environment to another.

As I said earlier, I think less "storytelling" needs to happen in games and more "experience" needs to happen. Don't worry about the pre-determined story so much as how the player gets there and how he or she changes the game environment in the process. In itself, that will help the player make a "story" their own without hurdling the difficulties of forcibly inserting narrative to get things moving again.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

BW_JP said:
BW_JP said:
starcraft said:
He hasn't played the Mass Effect series yet.

That is all.

Mass effect has incredible story telling, but it certainly is not the best at that. It's the complete package that makes mass effect so good.

That being said, this blog, and your post took his comments out of perspective. He's talking about contextual interactive responses to progressing the story. He is not talking about the story in general. 

And he is absolutely right. Waggling around to progress a story is going to take me out of the experience because of a number of things ranging from force feedback and the fact that that the remainder of the game is played conventionally (or unconventionally in the case of the wii). 

Story telling has nothing to do with how you interact with the game. A good story is a stand alone entity. It can exist by itself without the medium surrounding it. If it can not, then it fails as a story. Mass effect could very well be a novel and its story would be just as good.

Jaffe is a very experienced game designer. He is a master of pure mechanics and has made a wide variety of games from very different genres. has anyone else here played Mickey Mania? that game was spectacular. 

That being said, jaffe has experienced presenting a story in a number of different ways. He certainly has the right to speak about story in game design and I think people are really missing his true message.

Jaffe is not trying to tell you that story has not been properly cracked, what he's saying is that until this day there has not been a game where the contextual input from the user affects the story and is believable to the point where it actually adds anything to the story.  

Motion controls are really what he is speaking of here, and while they may offer truck loads of game play intuitiveness, they are not an excuse for poor mechanics, and they certainly will not make poor mechanics better. 

Just in that same light, motion controls will not make you feel "in" the story. You cannot feel. Natal can not replace the feeling of slapping someone, it will feel unnatural. There's no force response. You're just wagging your hand. 

Natal and the motion controllers are fantastic for providing enhancements to solid mechanics. Super Mario Galaxy being the diamond studded crown of this notion. They will not provide enhancements to solid story telling.

What improves story telling? visuals, music, voice acting, character design, environmental design, mood, setting and a number of other emotional aspects of game design.

Jaffe's primary concern, for those that actually listened to him is that he is concerned that the motion control will be played as a key part to improving a story rather than simply spending development costs on those other direct relationships.

He means that until these alternative control schemes are able to actually put you in the game that they will only take away from the other parts of game design.

It is a very valid concern. 

quoting myself so future readers get the fact that the title and blog post are incorrectly stating jaffe's comments.

Good points.  I think the two issues are related, though.

First and foremost, good mechanics are needed to allow the player to play, without breaking the illusion.  For example, I've just finished a session of Heavy Rain, which has some of the best traditional scenes I've played in a game.  But... the control's aren't good enough.  The QTEs distract at times, and they reveal the mechanics of the game.  They also can't be learnt which keeps you feeling awkward, as often they are just a random serious of prompts.  So he's spot on there.

Good story is required, too though, or else why bother trying to have input around a story?  Why not just stick to what I think of as 'pure' games like Mario, etc. where there is effectively no story just a very simple premise.

Like I said the best approaches are where you simply play the story.  Silent Hill 2 I still find the best from that perspective, as it cleanly seperates gameplay and story.  The gameplay can be learnt and works well, you know how to move, how to interact, how to fight.  The story unfolds through choices you make while playing without any seperate breaks or prompts.

What's needed (and I'm not saying it would easy) is a way to chose, for example in Mass Effect, whether to slap or not with unprompted action.  You just do it.  You don't get shown a series of choices, you just act.  I understand why having a selection of choices has worked so well, but it has to go if the kinds of stuff he's talking about are to be 'cracked' as he puts it, at least IMHO.

This means controls that can support making the choice yourself unprompted.  For example walking up to the annoying person in Mass Effect and either slapping them through choice or talking to them.

Right now, in most games like Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, etc. the gameplay is laid bare, and that's why it feels clunky and obvious.  When you play Mario or an FPS you just move and act.  The challenge I think is how to bring that to real choices against a narrative with purpose.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Cryoakira said:
Reasonable said:
Sorry guys, but ME has good storytelling for a videogame but pretty weak storytelling in context to other mediums.


But why do you need to compare to other mediums ?

storytelling in games isen't anything like movies or books. In fact, I believe great movies stories will be very weak in games context, simply because many tools used by scenarist are lost in games. 

VG storytellers must answer to very different constraints. The player control the pace of the game, not only when he plays, but also when he stops (not like watching TV episodes). Building intensity, emotional rythm, climax and such, is WAY harder (if not impossible). Some games run for 50+ hours and you have to keep things both interesting and clear. Many games allow a freedom that requiere fragmented story parts that can be assembled by the player in a non linear way (even if the outcome of the plot is forced) and that's something that doesn't really exist in movies.

VG, while they can learn some storytelling tricks from movies and books, should not try to follow the same path at all.

And let's not forget, as it was said in the original video, that you have two very different kind of "story-games". One is about telling the story of a character (Kratos for instance) to the player, the other about letting the player make its own story through an avatar. Once again, the means and ends are very different. What Jaffe said is very interesting, but IMO, doesn't apply to the two.

At some point, you can already see the "natal's slap" approach in ME2, when you can interrupt a scene with an instant action, and it works pretty well.

 

Because they're there, and videogames are copying them and aspiring to at least emulate them.  For me there's no point developers even trying to do this unless they want to achieve better results and something on the level of at least a decent potboiler novel or film.

When it comes to the story itself, the narraitive, I take a pretty harsh view in a sense: If the story would be better told in a book then write a book, don't waste a good story in a game.

Also, the rules of narrative are very old, and videogames aren't going to excape compariosn, particularly if developers put them in, just because of the medium.  This isn't something new.  Cinema went through exactly the same criticism for years (even still arguably) as it struggled to become artistically level with literature and plays.

To look at it another way, should I watch Transformers 2 and go this is crap because it's a film but forgive the same level ot trite storytelling technique because it's Gears of War and it's a game?  Or should I watch Transformers 2 and not even judge it on those terms, just accept it as knowing crap creatively made solely to make money with the story simply a context for the action, and take the same view for Gears, etc?

I say no, personaly, I don't see why using classic techniqes just to give some context to a videogame or action scene should let you 'off the hook' for quality.  If you're going to write dialogue, invent characters and try and convey a narrative then it should be judged as such as compared to what is perfectly achieveable.  Videogames don't need to have poor dialogue, that can be fixed by hiring the right talent and employing them correctly.  Same for voice acting (where appropriate).  Look at the leaps there these days.

In the end, if you're going to use a medium you should have a reason, or you should aknowledge that it's just a framing device and leave it at that - i.e. stick to pure videogames.

I don't want to sound over critical, but it's how a medium matures.  Take Heavy Rain.  It's fair to ask, why make it a game at all?  Was that the best choice?  Why not a film?  Would that have been superior to convey the themes and emotions?  What about a novel?  Why do QD keep trying to tell stories in this way?

Now of course, part of the answer is to trail blaze, to try new stuff.  Which is fine.  But constructive criticism - i.e. realising you don't have it down pat yet - is important if these types of games are to improve and not just be a gimmick.  I'd hope the developers behind Heavy Rain scour the internet to get reactions to the game, to what seemed to work and what didn't.  I'm sure they will.  Heavy Rain is already a big jump in quality and maturity from their previous title - who knows how they might polish their approach next?  But that needs criticism to happen.

I like your concept of Natal slap, BTW, as that's what I'm getting at in terms of the input elsewhere in the thread.  The less you need strange prompts and odd ways to make a choice, the better the immersion.  Natal could be great for story driven titles (although I think it's fundamentally flawed for many existing 'pure' game mechanics) so we'll have to wait and see.  Certainly Heavy Rain would work much better with motion controls and a context you can 'learn' vs some random prompts.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Reasonable, I understand your points but the Transformers and Gears comparisons are not fair. On any level, I consider Gears a better piece of media. Why? Neither piece goes for "highbrow" status, in fact, they go for the exact opposite. The difference between the two is that Gears is not insulting to my intelligence and generally, performs its intended task quite well. The story is there but it doesn't get in the way of the action, the characters don't make me want to scream, the dialogue is appropriately corny, and overall, it's an enjoyable ride.

Whereas Transformers just flat-out SUCKED. On every level. Even the action is bad, which should be the staple of a lowbrow flick like that.

Not everything has to be highbrow material but even the lowbrow stuff has to be held to some kind of standard.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
rocketpig said:
Cryoakira said:
Reasonable said:
Sorry guys, but ME has good storytelling for a videogame but pretty weak storytelling in context to other mediums.


But why do you need to compare to other mediums ?

storytelling in games isen't anything like movies or books. In fact, I believe great movies stories will be very weak in games context, simply because many tools used by scenarist are lost in games. 

VG storytellers must answer to very different constraints. The player control the pace of the game, not only when he plays, but also when he stops (not like watching TV episodes). Building intensity, emotional rythm, climax and such, is WAY harder (if not impossible). Some games run for 50+ hours and you have to keep things both interesting and clear. Many games allow a freedom that requiere fragmented story parts that can be assembled by the player in a non linear way (even if the outcome of the plot is forced) and that's something that doesn't really exist in movies.

VG, while they can learn some storytelling tricks from movies and books, should not try to follow the same path at all.

And let's not forget, as it was said in the original video, that you have two very different kind of "story-games". One is about telling the story of a character (Kratos for instance) to the player, the other about letting the player make its own story through an avatar. Once again, the means and ends are very different. What Jaffe said is very interesting, but IMO, doesn't apply to the two.

At some point, you can already see the "natal's slap" approach in ME2, when you can interrupt a scene with an instant action, and it works pretty well.

 

Games deserve to be compared to other media because they've try to hard to BE those other media. Some games still do it through mindless gameplay interrupted by long narrative sequences to move the story forward. Virtually no story progression happens in an interactive environment. This disjointed form of gaming is HORRIBLE at telling a story because the player is constantly being jerked from one environment to another.

As I said earlier, I think less "storytelling" needs to happen in games and more "experience" needs to happen. Don't worry about the pre-determined story so much as how the player gets there and how he or she changes the game environment in the process. In itself, that will help the player make a "story" their own without hurdling the difficulties of forcibly inserting narrative to get things moving again.

Yah, I agree right now.  Over time complexity might come - particularly with more power and better coding techniques - but right now what can be improved is the experience.

I've played three games (Mass Effect 2 may well be number 4 but I want to replay it a few times to get a better feel) that for me used a basically set narrative to allow for player experience and change:

Deus Ex

ICO

Sillent Hill 2

 

ICO has the simplest premise, and in fact you can't change much, but the interaction is superb and seamless and it's a great example of using a familiar canvas (a fairy tale essentially) married with simple, easy to master and invisible gameplay mechanics to deliver an amazing experience that is the equal of any filmed, acted or written based one.

Deus Ex has the most complex premise, a huge sprawling techno-conspiracy thriller (still unequalled IMHO) but it allows you to seamlessly make choices and affect the story without prompts.  Maybe you're tasking with an assassination.  There are no prompts, no moment to ponder the mechanics, you simply use the invisible mechanics you know (do I shot this person, do I lower the gun, turn and walk out, or do I turn on those who instructed me?) and once the choice is made it's made.  The rest of the story changes (no in overall shape, but in the details).  This welded to a fair bit of choice through fairly open levels really made you feel there and that you were in command.  You could walk in the front door, check round the back, try hacking a terminal to see if it opens a secret passage, and all without breaking the immersion.

Sillent Hill 2.  This is my favourite example of invisible choices.  Throughout the game, without even being aware of it, you are carefully put in the position of making choices, and they matter in the end because they add up, they have impact, and finally they determine how the story ends, what happens to you, all within a fixed overarching narrative.  A fake example might be rescuing someone from a locked room, how long you take, how you do it, and how you treat them afterwards all affects the story without a single prompt or you even being aware of it.

 

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

aragod said:
Xoj said:
lol bioshock and mass effect?.

shadow of the colossus xO

SotC story? You can describe the whole story in 2 sentences... SotC is about mood, setting and emotions (and gameplay). The idea is quiete original and not mainstream, which is appriciated. But it is not a complex story with lots of twists etc etc. Also he is talking about the way the story is told, player immersion and more. I sincerely recommend everyone to watch that episode of GT, no Pachter and a great lineup of industry experts.

exactly, Sotc didn't need voice acting and alot of NPCs, but the story itself was abit more than 2 sentences especially the ending, what bioshock/ mass effect did was pretty much alot u see on american sci fi series, i found mass effect weak, since many outcomes were expected.

 

 



Millennium said:
Storytelling has been properly cracked for at least 20 years, and possibly longer. Games have been telling effective and powerful stories for at least that long.

The only difference nowadays is that game makers don't want to do that. They want to sell games based on pretty pictures -it is, after all, the easiest way to sell games- and so they ignore the effective storytelling methods that have been well-understood for many years in an attempt to do what they brand as "more" while actually being less.

 



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Xoj said:
aragod said:
Xoj said:
lol bioshock and mass effect?.

shadow of the colossus xO

SotC story? You can describe the whole story in 2 sentences... SotC is about mood, setting and emotions (and gameplay). The idea is quiete original and not mainstream, which is appriciated. But it is not a complex story with lots of twists etc etc. Also he is talking about the way the story is told, player immersion and more. I sincerely recommend everyone to watch that episode of GT, no Pachter and a great lineup of industry experts.

exactly, Sotc didn't need voice acting and alot of NPCs, but the story itself was abit more than 2 sentences especially the ending, what bioshock/ mass effect did was pretty much alot u see on american sci fi series, i found mass effect weak, since many outcomes were expected.

You should try looking at Mass Effect the same way you look at SotC, it's more about the presentation and immersion, rather than super unique story with 10 twists around every corner. Also ME1 story was a lot more interesting than the 2nd, since the 2nd one is supposed to build up to the "finale".

BTW both ICO and SotC are the most emotional interactive projects I've ever seen, I'm really looking forward to TLG, I just hope Fumito Ueda can pull it off again.



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

BW_JP said:
starcraft said:
He hasn't played the Mass Effect series yet.

That is all.

Mass effect has incredible story telling, but it certainly is not the best at that. It's the complete package that makes mass effect so good.

That being said, this blog, and your post took his comments out of perspective. He's talking about contextual interactive responses to progressing the story. He is not talking about the story in general. 

And he is absolutely right. Waggling around to progress a story is going to take me out of the experience because of a number of things ranging from force feedback and the fact that that the remainder of the game is played conventionally (or unconventionally in the case of the wii). 

Story telling has nothing to do with how you interact with the game. A good story is a stand alone entity. It can exist by itself without the medium surrounding it. If it can not, then it fails as a story. Mass effect could very well be a novel and its story would be just as good.

Jaffe is a very experienced game designer. He is a master of pure mechanics and has made a wide variety of games from very different genres. has anyone else here played Mickey Mania? that game was spectacular. 

That being said, jaffe has experienced presenting a story in a number of different ways. He certainly has the right to speak about story in game design and I think people are really missing his true message.

Jaffe is not trying to tell you that story has not been properly cracked, what he's saying is that until this day there has not been a game where the contextual input from the user affects the story and is believable to the point where it actually adds anything to the story.  

Motion controls are really what he is speaking of here, and while they may offer truck loads of game play intuitiveness, they are not an excuse for poor mechanics, and they certainly will not make poor mechanics better. 

Just in that same light, motion controls will not make you feel "in" the story. You cannot feel. Natal can not replace the feeling of slapping someone, it will feel unnatural. There's no force response. You're just wagging your hand. 

Natal and the motion controllers are fantastic for providing enhancements to solid mechanics. Super Mario Galaxy being the diamond studded crown of this notion. They will not provide enhancements to solid story telling.

What improves story telling? visuals, music, voice acting, character design, environmental design, mood, setting and a number of other emotional aspects of game design.

Jaffe's primary concern, for those that actually listened to him is that he is concerned that the motion control will be played as a key part to improving a story rather than simply spending development costs on those other direct relationships.

He means that until these alternative control schemes are able to actually put you in the game that they will only take away from the other parts of game design.

It is a very valid concern. 

Mass Effect series has by a long shot, the best storytelling of any game. And the most tense story moments. In 2007 people loved the last 3 hours of ME1. And in 2010, people were blown away by the first 2 hours and final 5 of ME2.