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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Games don't need stories.

Hidalgo on 21 December 2009
WereKitten said:
MDMAniac said:
Hidalgo said:
Do we think as gamers that videogames are art? If the answer is NO, then (we as) the community have failed.

Is art that funny?

I don't agree with Hidalgo, but is every videogame supposed to be "funny"?

I know how this forum works, and let me get this straight:

I haven't said that all games are art. Never, ever. (As a matter of fact, only a little percentage can be considered as art).

 

Videogames don't have to be art necessarly. Just as cinema, music, literature, they are all mostly designed to "entertain". "Have fun". Just that, no more further points.



Around the Network
alephnull on 21 December 2009

What is this game you speak of with excessive attention given to plot?



richardhutnik on 21 December 2009
Hidalgo said:


Do we think as gamers that videogames are art? If the answer is NO, then (we as) the community have failed.

edit:

From other point of view:

You can write a book. A book is not more than a couple of glued pages. But I bet you love the way it's used to tell stories. You can also avoid pictures in the book, but they can become part of the story and be art too.

Videogames, books, cinema, music, picture... all of them are channels. You can fill them in many ways, and one that makes us human is art. To be able to produce strong (and sometimes unusual) feelings in others. That's a gift we must not let to pass us by.

Game creation is an art.  However, its focus historically has not been to provide a forced narrative on it that players ended up playing through (I would classify this as "interactive fiction").  The focus of game design historically had been to provide an environment that challenge players to use their skills to defeat others at them.  In this struggled a narrative would manifest itself that could be told in retrospect.  But it didn't have a forced narrative.

I would consider the direction high-cost videogames heading now to be one akin to simulating the experience on the Star Trek holodeck.  I would be pressed to considered the holodeck a game.  I would say it is a form of play though, but not a game.

The measure of a game as entertainment is how much it entertains people, and engages them.  A movie or book is measured by how well of a story narrative it put together.  On that note, I can give you my experience as a designer of board and cardgames.  The measure of a good design I have is how much players enjoy playing it and replaying it, and the depth of challenge they get out of it, and how much they are surprised.  It is an engaging experience that is meant to be played over and over.



Crystalchild on 21 December 2009
richardhutnik said:
Crystalchild said:
As for me: No Story, no Motivation to play a game.
(At least i want to know why i do what i do in Games).

You don't play stuff like Chess, or Freecell, or sports?  Games normally had a motivation of being something you competed against someone else at in order to beat them.  This is a reason why a team sporting event will be called a "game".

 

you are absolutely right with what youre saying, and Chess is my favourite board Game.

But thats kind'a different for me, because i play with people i know, its like Mario Kart with 3 other Players - i am together with Friends, my Girlfriend or Family, we have fun and we do laugh a lot, but in a Game. if i run straight through a dungeon without any idea why i'm doing this is something different, imo.



I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!

Seece on 21 December 2009

L4D is a prime example of a game that doesn't need a story, but would greatly benefit with one.



 

Around the Network
Sardauk on 21 December 2009
Seece said:
L4D is a prime example of a game that doesn't need a story, but would greatly benefit with one.

It stopped playing it because of that... lack of a soul...



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

richardhutnik on 21 December 2009
Riachu said:
Some of those things are true. But you also need to know that we want to prove Roger Ebert wrong about games not being art.

I would say games are a form of art in the sense they are a product of workmanship, that can be seen as having beauty.  Can the drive an individual to have certain emotional responses?  That is possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

I am not sure it is though.  Again, we may be splitting hairs over terminology.



WereKitten on 21 December 2009

@Richardutnik

Maybe the problem is simply that the "videogame" term is an umbrella for too many different things. From video-toys to interactive fiction to collaborative or competitive tests of skills.

But the same can actually be said for the "game" term as applied to "physical" activities, as RPGs themselves testify.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

alephnull on 21 December 2009
richardhutnik said:

Game creation is an art.  However, its focus historically has not been to provide a forced narrative on it that players ended up playing through (I would classify this as "interactive fiction").  The focus of game design historically had been to provide an environment that challenge players to use their skills to defeat others at them.  In this struggled a narrative would manifest itself that could be told in retrospect.  But it didn't have a forced narrative.

What would you call Zork and all the old text based adventure games?



richardhutnik on 21 December 2009
Sardauk said:
Seece said:
L4D is a prime example of a game that doesn't need a story, but would greatly benefit with one.

It stopped playing it because of that... lack of a soul...

You means lacks a narrative that drives you and compels you to play it to see the ending?  It being a narrative where the game creator wants you to see a gaming world a certain way and experience something?  If so, this touches on what I was writing about.  One can consider what is traditionally a game as "soulless".  You are in the environment, bound by restrictions, and try to complete something against a system oir other players.  L4D, to me, feels like a great simulation of a what I run into in a cooperative boardgame.  I face surprises and have to deal with the unknown, and cooperate to get there.