noname2200 said:
Pineapple said:
My stance is essentially that a good story can make a game so much better that it's worth the risk. By leaving story out of the game, you're virtually ensuring that your game won't be a masterpiece. If it manages to be a masterpiece without a story, it most likely could have been even more marvelous had it had a story (although there are exceptions to this).
Making games from the idea that what you put in might be offputting will prevent you from putting in a lot of stuff that should be there.
|
I completely disagree. Just because a concept or item can conceivably improve a product, it does not logically follow that adding that concept or item must improve that product; the creator's execution of the concept/item might be so terrible that it does in fact damage the end product, making it worse than it would have been had that concept/item never been inserted in the first place.
Let me begin with an imperfect analogy. A singer begins to sing a song without any instrumental accompaniment. The singer's voice is good enough that he is pleasant to listen to as-is, but the song he is singing was meant to be accompanied by a guitar.
What you are saying is essentially that adding the guitar to the song can make the product so much better that it is worth having someone in the audience pick up a guitar and start strumming some notes, even though they have repeatedly proven themselves terrible musicians. What I am saying is that because the vast majority of the audience has repeatedly proven that it has little clue how to play a musical instrument, it is better to let the singer continue a capella than to have the singer's performance be ruined by someone playing dischordant noise throughout the song.
If you need some audio example of this hypothetical, try streaming this acapella website, then add this youtube clip.
If you'd like another analogy, imagine a cook who has access to an entire pantry full of spices and no idea what to do with them, and who opts to empty out the tumeric and saffron jars into the small pot of soup. Spices make food better, but when the cook has no idea how to use them it's best to utilize self-restraint!
That is, essentially, what we are getting from game developers: they can come up with good gameplay, but because they're often too inept to come up with a good story to go with it (but are increasingly insistent about laying the story on pretty thick) they detract from the final product.
There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes the reciprocal occurs instead (as someone who loves adventure games, I can name plenty of games with enjoyable story but terrible gameplay: for instance, I'm playing 999 right now, and it seems to fit into this mold to a T). But I feel comfortable saying that, when it comes to story in games, the hits are far outweighed by the misses, sometimes to such a degree that the story detracts from the overall game.
Does this mean that developers as a whole should abandon story entirely? Not at all: as we've both pointed out by now, a good, or even decent, story can improve the game. But should most developers acknowledge their severe shortcomings as storytellers, and like the amateur cook above consequently curve their eagerness to deluge us with the spices? I think the answer here is unquestionably "yes." I'd even argue that this would help them to improve their storytelling, since like any amateur who is undertaking a new craft it lets them small and thus gradually learn what works and what doesn't, all in manageable doses as opposed to drowning in a sea of overwhelming detail. After all, a musician must learn his chords before he can compose a symphony.
|
