Helios said:
richardhutnik said:
I would say that, those who are gifted in the art of storytelling through the use of a game medium, can and should do that. However, I don't think game designers should feel pressured to use the medium of games in order to tell stories, if they are weak at telling stories. I also think, in addition to exploring new play mechanics, they should also explore how to tell a story through a game medium. After doing this, look to do it in a way that it doesn't feel it has to go AAA production value and be a movie on top of everything else they have to do. I think a focus on creating a fun and credibile gaming WORLD is more important than trying to create a story with games, in my opinion (but if you can do both, that is great also). And then throw fun on top. The Holodeck would be an example of what to shoot for here. And maybe the only viable way to get the sufficient resources to fund this is in an MMO format where players happen to keep paying to play.
|
I partly agree. It is true that far from every game needs to present the player with a predefined narrative - and if it does not it certainly is not lesser for it. However, I would argue that all games create stories - as in a game of chess, where the players' actions confer the game a decidedly different progression/outcome. These emergent stories, and their possible symbolic interpretations, are both a result of the game's design.
I think you have a point about world creation, though. Miyamoto really was one of the pioneers of tangible game worlds - his games introduced worlds with histories and characters with goals, giving the player a strong sense of context. It creates a much richer experience without the use of a 'forced' narrative structure. It is a design philosophy that I think certainly should be pursued in the future.
|
I would say that sports or any form of competiton can have a story written about it. Reality TV is a style of television that takes what happens in life, that is on the mundane side, and happen to make a narrative out of it. What is key is that the storyteller put the right narrative on top of what happened. Done poorly, and you don't have something that captivates. How important is this? Well, the World Series of Poker, on TV, happens to get decent enough ratings to stick around. But, unlike other events ESPN covers, you can get into the World Series of Poker for free and watch. What is the difference between the two? Well, the televised version of the World Series of Poker puts a narrative on top of what happened, that happens to hold the attention of the audience. You don't get this with the live event.
In this, there is difference between making players play a forced narrative, and letting them create their own. The former pushes games into movies, and has the risk of boring the player. The later, by enabling players to create their own stories in play, is one of the potential positive outcomes of doing good game design. The way you do the later is providing a rich enough game world where players can have fun while playing, and engage them in the experience.
