[shezcrafti]

Saw this article today and it made me kinda sad:

http://www.1up.com/news/god-war-creator-calls-story

(There's a video too.)

At last week's DICE summit, God of War creator David Jaffe had the following to say:

"My talk is actually a warning about why we shouldn't tell stories with our video games. I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a waste of resources and time and money and more importantly I think it actually stunts, and has stunted over the last ten years or so, the medium of video games."

"I think with...the advent of CDs for game storage, and then high end graphics and voice actors and all this -- cutscenes -- games kind of got off on a bit of a wrong track that was very appealing, but it wasn't necessarily the only track we should have got off on. And I think that's what the lesson taught me. I want to get really good at the other track, and I don't want to try and make a cinematic game. I want to try and make a great game, if that makes sense at all."

I can certainly understand where he's coming from, but personally I think there's plenty of room for many different types of games, including ones that are heavily story-focused. I don't always want to play some brainless FPS or hack & slash, even though I enjoy them from time to time. If all developers thought like him, think of what a dull gaming landscape it would be. Would we even have an adventure game genre?

What do you guys think?

[Oscar]

I'm sure some people used to think movies and books shouldn't be used to tell stories either. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Collector]

He is an idiot that could probably be endlessly entertained by sock puppets if there were enough action sequences.

[SamuelGordon]

Story is the MAIN reason i play games. I can plays fps,mindless games against my brother or friend but if i'm alone i need to play WITH PURPOSE (story,characters). The death of story driven games will never happen, the death of good game stories is another eeuhm story.

[Datadog]

Personally, I get bored in ten minutes by any game without a story (unless I'm playing co-op with my friends - but then that's whole other story right there).

Just watched the video - he's not really saying that games shouldn't have stories. It's more like a rant against game designers who are putting story ahead of game-play - where they dream up all kinds of fancy cinematic gimmicks and epic trailer shots before they even dream up the game. I agree that this doesn't well work in the game's interest if the story and game-play are two completely separate animals. And he does hold a good case that many of the most successful games at the moment have virtually no story at all.

But I would contest that story and game-play have been well-integrated many times. I think adventure games are actually the best genre for this since the puzzle-solving game-play often blends seamlessly with the story-telling when done right.

[Monolith]

Because God of War was such an original story to begin with. :/

[wildemar]

[Disclaimer: Haven't watched the video yet, gonna do it when I'm on a faster connection. Just going by your summary for now.]

He may be overstating his intentions a bit, but I very strongly feel that he has a point. In recent years, video games have succumbed to employ stories to just rope players through some form of "gameplay" or another. The culmination of this trend, I think, are these wretched "quick time events", which are really the most depraved form of "games" I can immagine. This has also led to the general assumptions that games are "movies, but better". Ask David Cage (Heavy Rain), he basically says as much in every one of his interviews.

The problem is that the word "game" isn't really well defined. Classically it means something like "a set of rules/mechanics by which to obtain a certain goal". Think board games, card games, and so on. With the advent of the computer, this definition has slowly eroded. There have always been, and there still are "pure games", if you will. Fighting games being the best examples to my mind, but also FPS, sports games and what have you. These are pure mechanics, *all* of them could work without a story, and in fact many of them do.

But what are these "rules" in an adventure game? Use verbs on objects? I guess. But it is substantially different. You can't really shape the course of the game by "getting better" at adventure games. The course of the game is strictly in the hands of the developer; if the developer didn't plan on it, it won't happen. FPSs (and fighting games, and others) however, are very much in the players hands. Every play is different, completely determined by the way the player employs the rules/mechanics.

What we think of today as games is sort of an amalgamation of (or a compromise between) these two extremes[1]. And what I think Mr. Jaffe seems to be lamenting is that the classic, mechanics-based aspect of games is lost in favor of the "movies with buttons" style aproach that condems the supposed "player" to less and less actual play and more passive consumption.

[1]: OK, I know. Pen and Paper RPGs had that same amalgamation even before everyone had computers. Bear with me.

I find this view very valid. I like story based games way more than I like mechanics based games, but still I hate nothing more than starting a game that turns out to be a movie in disguise (I'm looking at you, The Longest Journey, Fahrenheit, and that whole ilk. You know who you are).

In the end, it comes down to definition. I'm not against stories without mechanics (or weak mechanics) per se, but I hate calling these things "games". There's an episode of Extra Credits about this, where they try to come up with a better name for these kinds of things. The one that stuck with me was "interactive experiences". Terribly cludgy, but I think it fits.

To come back to the original post: I don't think gaming would be dull if we didn't have stories. We'd just have games without stories, that's all. Pachisi-type games ("Mensch ärgere dich nicht" if you're German) are crazy fun, and nobody laments the absence of story in those. Games don't need story and stories don't need games. In fact, often one gets in the way of the other (determinism vs. agency, a whole other mess of a discussion), and to mix them can dull the ingredients to the point of a vapid blob of nothing. And I feel that's what a lot of "games" these days are, namely not games at all. So more power to people like Jaffe, trying to remind people that games are meant to be played, not consumed.

What a rant. Sorry. Just a quick shout out: For a lot of insightful commentary on how to mix games and story in a way that actually enhances both, see the aforementioned Extra Credits, and also everything that Jordan Mechner (Prince of Persia, The Last Express) has ever said about computer games. Also Johnathan Blow (Braid); he makes a distiction between story and plot that I find extremely interesting.

[Ascovel]

What Datadog said. That Jaffe guy makes a pretty good point. Even though in the end I don't agree with him and I think there's a huge potential of connecting gameplay and storytelling.

Quite a few adventure games already touched this through specific puzzle-solving instances that actually lead to better understanding of the story and characters, and not just overcoming an obstacle.

Even the basic adventure game gimmick of the main character giving vocal responses to all kinds of object-focused interactions is a way of building a game world based on smaller and bigger backstories.

[Idrisguitar]

Originally Posted by Collector

He is an idiot that could probably be endlessly entertained by sock puppets if there were enough action sequences.

Watch his PAX conference lecture and try and say that again with a straight face.

Obviously I dont agree with him, but I have massive respect for him. He knows this industry pretty well and while he has some extreme views, its mainly down to the experience he's had and you cant really resent him for that.

In fact no-one will agree with him on this forum. However when you think about this point from a money making standpoint, it stands up. You think the 14 million people buying Call of Duty care about what the story is?

The biggest money maker in entertainment history (it beat avatar right?) is because of an online mode that has ZERO narrative.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Idrisguitar

In fact no-one will agree with him on this forum. However when you think about this point from a money making standpoint, it stands up. You think the 14 million people buying Call of Duty care about what the story is?

Now it's YOU who are doing a huge disservice to this guy, painting him as just some shallow money-grubber. His argument is far more clever than that.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by shezcrafti

Saw this article today and it made me kinda sad:

"I think with...the advent of CDs for game storage, and then high end graphics and voice actors and all this -- cutscenes -- games kind of got off on a bit of a wrong track that was very appealing, but it wasn't necessarily the only track we should have got off on. And I think that's what the lesson taught me. I want to get really good at the other track, and I don't want to try and make a cinematic game. I want to try and make a great game, if that makes sense at all."

The guy is right,(he isnt saying about games without as tory but story driven means notopen ended i understand) cinematic element used to apply as a reward(a resolution)part in old days games nowadays games you gettin it average every 5 min.or so.Games became movies to watch more than play.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Gabe

The guy is right,(he isnt saying about games without as tory but story driven means notopen ended i understand) cinematic element used to apply as a reward(a resolution)part in old days games nowadays games you gettin it average every 5 min.or so.Games became movies to watch more than play.

He said his talk was "a warning why we shouldn't tell stories with games".

The overuse of cinematics is something I agree with, but is another topic for another thread.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by Oscar

He said his talk was "a warning why we shouldn't tell stories with games".

The overuse of cinematics is something I agree with, but is another topic for another thread.

Are you sure ,that's how story-driven games ties their story today.There
are games even more than half contains cinematics.

He distinguished "player authored stories," in games like Skyrim, where the game's mechanics are "so compelling and engaging that the player by the very nature of playing the game ... is the story," and traditional games created "with the intent purpose of expressing a story... or giving the player the designer's narrative."

I don't want to try to make movies through games.

I want to try to make experiences that speak respectfully and powerfully, using the language of interactivity. You hear a lot of people talk about the "language of cinema," and there is a language of interactivity, and there's a necessity to understanding interactivity."

By chasing movies game makers have slowed the growth of game mechanics.

"We found ourselves seduced by the power of film...and sort of going down this road...and the expectations of films we began to put on games and they looked like movies, and were starting to feel like movies, and we thought we had to provide the same experience as movies. In that we lost a lot of the fundamentals that make the medium special.

[UPtimist]

Couldn't be bothered to watch the video, but from the quotes I got more this:

Originally Posted by Datadog

Just watched the video - he's not really saying that games shouldn't have stories. It's more like a rant against game designers who are putting story ahead of game-play - where they dream up all kinds of fancy cinematic gimmicks and epic trailer shots before they even dream up the game. I agree that this doesn't well work in the game's interest if the story and game-play are two completely separate animals. And he does hold a good case that many of the most successful games at the moment have virtually no story at all.

than the idea that there shouldn't be stories. Or maybe I'm just rationalizing this in my head (because it makes absolutely no sense for games not to have stories.

I do agree to some extent with the part about the cinematic gimmicks, games are a different medium, and usually when they use such tricks it's something that's already a terrible cliché in movies, and when transferred to games, it's even worse. And also there's the trend of "world-altering choices!" around every corner which I think is going a bit out of hand now (and is usually really forced anyhow)...

But while games should of course have as good gameplay as possible, a story is not a hindrance to it, it can help it, as long as people know what they're doing. Even the best FPS would be senseless without a story.

[Oscar]

The thing is Gabe, I don't find Skyrim's mechanics "compelling and engaging" (irrelevant, I know), nor do I find the way it involves a story to differ significantly from the traditional method of expressing a story.

He's correct that there are points in the games like Skyrim where the player has a choice of actions which alter the story, whereas in adventure games the player is (usually) playing through a narration of the story. But what's the difference? So there are two endings instead of one. The gameplay is the period leading to that - and it's exactly the same in both types of games. So you can shoot enemy 2 instead of enemy 1, while in a 'traditional' game you might examine the fireplace before the dead body.

It sounds like he's saying that Skyrim somehow allows the player to make the story. How? He/she is still playing through a predetermined narrative, with branches.

I'd like him to explain to me how the way of telling a story differs between, say, Pandora Directive - what you would call a cinematic game, and Skyrim.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by Oscar

He's correct that there are points in the games like Skyrim where the player has a choice of actions which alter the story, whereas in adventure games the player is (usually) playing through a narration of the story. But what's the difference? So there are two endings instead of one..

No ,difference is what's called open ended.

It sounds like he's saying that Skyrim somehow allows the player to make the story. How? He/she is still playing through a predetermined narrative, with branches.

You dont have follow a one main story you can get in or out many stories
you can create your character many different ways,your deeds,
your choices and you make your own story.

It always be predetermined narrative(unless you write down own lines) but you can create own story with variations of it.

I'd like him to explain to me how the way of telling a story differs between, say, Pandora Directive - what you would call a cinematic game, and Skyrim.

Check earlier post i quoted his words,your answer is lie in there.

[subbi]

Actually, games like GTA and Red Dead Redemption do show that you can succesfully combine action with story and cinematics.

I do like to think that RDR was successful thanks to the strong characterization and epic story line woven together thru cinematic sequences.....I loved it for sure.

True enough that these games did not beat Call of Duty, but it is right up there in the high sales figures range with the other successfull games, of which most do contain some storyline and/or cinematics to at least some extend.

I did not play CoD, but does this game als not include a kind of "story mode" or is it just multiplayer/free roam?

[tsampikos]

Someone should tell him that games like God of War are a waste of brain....

[ZeframCochrane]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Half Life and/or Portal series. Or maybe Jaffe doesn't think those games were particularly successful in terms of profit? Gabe is counting his Ferraris as we speak. Well, figuratively.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Gabe

No ,difference is what's called open ended.

You dont have follow a one main story you can get in or out many stories
you can create your character many different ways,your deeds,
your choices and you make your own story.

It always be predetermined narrative(unless you write down own lines) but you can create own story with variations of it.

Then what you get is a game with a large number of quests, where each quest is like a different game. I think of an open ended game as many small games in a big game. A quest is always as linear as a traditional game. There are different ways of doing things in both.