[Jackal]

No, "they" are being vicious and hateful in their mob attack of a real person from the safe anonymity of the internet. Her response was A) nothing in comparison to the abuse she'd taken, and B) entirely justified (and then some). Unfortunately, it inevitably made things worse, as no one cries faster than an internet bully who's finally been bitch-slapped.

And on that note ( ), it's time to get this thread back on track.

I agree with others that the list above is so broad that it seems pretty random and underwhelming, but I take the point behind it. I do think we're seeing an encouraging emergence of experimental games that meld story and gameplay in unique ways, and that can only be a good thing. But as always, the value of any story-driven game will still be dependent on the quality of the story itself, so we'll see how many of these pan out.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by zane

The problem is, it makes your list so broad that other years in the last decade probably have 5x plus more titles than that list. It pretty much includes any game that has more than one ending because the story is "interactive"
That just really isnt a high amount of releases when you say its from any game that has any kind of story you "progress through".
edit: Other games released/to be released this year that would fit a criteria that includes ff13 would be: devil survivor 2, final fantasy type 0, hakouki, xeno blade, last story, tales of graces f, growlanser 4, gungnir, katawa shoujo, kingdoms of amalur
and thats off the top of my head

The point was not that any form of interactivity can make a game stand out. The interactivity should as a bare minimum blend with the storytelling. And usually somehow diverse interactivity is needed, but not always.

I know that some genres usually lend themselves less to interactive storytelling than adventure games. But there are exceptions. So while most RPGs, action-adventures, etc, isn't that interesting from an interactive storytelling point of view, some are different. And I chose the ones that I think stand out in that regard

Just one example (Dead State):
As well as doing the usual fighting, you have to expand and maintain a "shelter" - an abandoned school - where you and your followers hide from thugs and infected humans. And, being a post-apocalyptic world, resources are scarce, so you have to scavenge for stuff to add to your shelter, as well as food, water and antibiotics (a virus has turned some people in to zombie-like creatures, and antibiotics handle the virus, for a while).

And not least, you have to decide what to do if you run low on resources. Who gets to stay in the shelter? Who can have the antibiotics, and who should die? Or do you risk going out in the dangerous world and try to find/steal/buy more resources? And what do you do if some of your followers decide to turn against you?

Furthermore, the lead designer (Brian Mitsoda) was the lead writer, as well as one of the designers, on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, so the game has potential. It's not like the game has the usual RPG-feel, the standard fight-loot-dialog/cutscene cycle

But as I said, everyone is free to disagree - but from my perspective the year could turn out to be quite spectacular

Originally Posted by Jackal

I agree with others that the list above is so broad that it seems pretty random and underwhelming, but I take the point behind it. I do think we're seeing an encouraging emergence of experimental games that meld story and gameplay in unique ways, and that can only be a good thing. But as always, the value of any story-driven game will still be dependent on the quality of the story itself, so we'll see how many of these pan out.

To call it random is a bit on the arrogant side, I think. Or ignorant - could be, that you just need to read up on some of the games

Or maybe you know about the games but disagree - fine, but that doesn't make my choices random

[ozzie]

Well, it is a very varied list. But I'm also hopeful for this year.

I think this might become a specifically good time for the adventure genre.
Daedalic plans to release two more titles this year in Germany (the Deponia sequel and The Dark Eye) and for next year January they already have Deponia 3 planned. They's certainly very busy atm and I hope this might be finally the year where they manage to fulfill all their potential.
Then there's the recent announcement of the Double Fine adventure and who knows when The Witness will be released...oh, and then there's Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs!

I'm truly excited!

[zane]

Originally Posted by Jannik

And I chose the ones that I think stand out in that regard

Thaaats the issue, for you ff13-2 stands out. For me its dialogue system is no different from dozens of other j-rpgs that are released every year

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jannik

To call it random is a bit on the arrogant side, I think. Or ignorant - could be, that you just need to read up on some of the games

Or maybe you know about the games but disagree - fine, but that doesn't make my choices random

Well, your criteria alone are pretty random. An LSL remake is hardly an example of bold new interactive storytelling, so presumably that's just one of those "highly anticipated because of the development team/designers" games you're looking forward to. The new Sherlock looks good, but I don't really know why it should stand above previous games in the series. So I'm just not really seeing the common thread that links all these games. Can't really tell which you're anticipating for which reason when you list them all together.

[ozzie]

If we're talking generally interactive storytelling, then I think Prey 2 should also be on your list.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by zane

Thaaats the issue, for you ff13-2 stands out. For me its dialogue system is no different from dozens of other j-rpgs that are released every year

I haven't played it or read reviews (well, I've skimmed one review), but before the game came out I read about it, and the time travel aspect was said to let you shape the story in interesting ways. Could be that the game failed to deliver, I don't know

Originally Posted by Jackal

Well, your criteria alone are pretty random.

Broad, not random, there's a big difference. Actually the broadness is one of my main points: In my opinion, there are very interesting story-driven games in 2012 for almost every kind of gamer to look forward to, and that's definitely not something that can be said about every year

Regarding Sherlock: We don't see many detective adventure games with direct control and free movement, certainly not every year. And the broad opinion is that Frogwares makes quite good games. These facts alone would probably only make the new Sherlock somewhat interesting for most people. But if you combine the above with the fact that the budget is much higher this time, I'd say the game has elevated from "somewhat interesting" to "very interesting".

Will they spend all the extra money on better graphics? Perhaps, but lists like this is mostly about potential anyway. Maybe one of the more debatable games, but this type of lists will always have that

Anyway, to accuse somebody of creating a random list is just guessing. And a bit rude if meant in a literal way. But no matter what, I'll let you off the hook... this time

[subbi]

Jannik,

It's rather odd to state that in your opinion (subjective) a list of games is interesting for all gamers (objectively). It doesn't work like that.

The criteria behind you opinions are vague at best, which is fine, but that makes the list a very personal one!

The only way to make an objective list is to come up with very clear and specific criteria, ensure that these are supportedby others and even then there'll still be lots disagreement and discussion.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jannik

Broad, not random, there's a big difference.

Only different to you, since only you know why you listed each (and didn't list others). Obviously I didn't mean you'd picked names blindly out of hat, but from the outside the list is so broad there appears to be no defined criteria at all (as others have already pointed out). That's pretty much the definition of random. To us it just looks like you listed every game that interests you with any semblance of a story and tried to cram them all under some "interactive storytelling" umbrella, even though each appeals to you for wildly different reasons.

Hey, I agree with you that there are lots of interesting, diverse games coming that will appeal to lots of people. I'm not trying to undermine your central point. But I'd argue that not all the games you listed are even "story-driven". That doesn't diminish their appeal -- Botanicula is one of my most anticipated games of the year -- but by lumping them all together as if they share one thing in common, I think you're just confusing the issue.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by subbi

It's rather odd to state that in your opinion (subjective) a list of games is interesting for all gamers (objectively). It doesn't work like that.

I've specifically stated more than once, that the list is based on my opinion alone, and I've even encouraged people to add their own games in this thread

Originally Posted by Jackal

Obviously I didn't mean you'd picked names blindly out of hat, but from the outside the list is so broad there appears to be no defined criteria at all (as others have already pointed out). That's pretty much the definition of random. To us it just looks like you listed every game that interests you with any semblance of a story and tried to cram them all under some "interactive storytelling" umbrella, even though each appeals to you for wildly different reasons.

While the list is broad, there are no more than two, perhaps three criteria behind the list (depending on how you look at it, but two main criteria and one sub-criterion), and I think of them as defined. I thought that was clear by now, but fair enough if it isn't. English is not my first language, maybe that has something to do with it

In my head, anyway, everything is clear and defined

EDIT 2: I was in a hurry before, I've clarified the last paragraph + added a few bits and pieces.

[zane]

Originally Posted by Jannik

I haven't played it or read reviews

suddenly everything makes more sense

[diego]

I would say - 2012 - the year of adventures. There are great games on the horizon, attention is more on the genre than before, indie scene flourishes and meeting big budgets at the halfway... There're already two "instant-classics" released in Germany with very favourable reviews - Deponia and The Lost Chronicles of Zerzura.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Jannik

While the list is broad, there are no more than two, perhaps three criteria behind the list (depending on how you look at it, but two main criteria and one sub-criterion), and I think of them as defined.

Which criteria would these be? Because they're the crux of the whole argument, imo...

[kuze]

Originally Posted by zane

suddenly everything makes more sense

Exactly. FFXIII-2 (don't you just hate typing this title?), if it's anything like the prequel at all, is a horrible example for well-executed story-telling. Any FF title has always been a confusing wreck of a tale, but FFXIII was the least interesting and the most obnoxious of them all. Those characters, those dialogues, oh man, it sure is a case of horrible story-diarrhea.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

Which criteria would these be? Because they're the crux of the whole argument, imo...

Well, I tried to explain them in the first post, but apparently failed a bit. But lists like that are always partly educated guesses and gut feelings anyway, that's why I think people should just use their own criteria

And I don't think the criteria are what's most important in this context anyway - they're definitely nice to know and helps shed some light on things, but what's more interesting, to me, is simply how fans of interactive storytelling perceive the potential of 2012: Much better than normal, slightly better than normal, mediocre, worse than normal, etc. Then we could always make a new thread in January 2013 and discuss the actual games

But I could clarify my personal list a bit by saying, that I've at some point looked at every single game (previews, videos, etc) on my personal "Games to Watch" (it doesn't just contain story-driven games, but I obviously chose games with stories for this thread), and then before I made this thread I tried to weight the pros and cons of what we know about them so far; A team/designer that I think have proved their worth could sometimes be enough, and then I would put their game on the list. But if the team/designer is inexperienced, then it sometimes makes sense to look at how "fresh" their ideas seem to be. So that was sort of my main way of doing it: Looking at the teams'/developers' backstory and the ideas behind each 2012 game, and then weighting the pros and cons of that. But, as I've said from the beginning, I don't know every "interactive story" that comes out in 2012 (and probably nobody does), so already by that some sort of "indirect" filtering is going on.

[subbi]

The category 'interactive storytelling' is still far to broad in my opinion.....almost any game fits this label, doesn't it.

You still haven't made clear if this should only cover adventuregames only per the definition of this site or any other definition. You made it clear you don't want to narrow it down any further, so anything goes I assume.

Give me any good reason why Grand Theft Auto 5 cannot be addes aswel then or the new Assasins Creed (or virtually any game with an identifiable story in it). You seem to to consider RPGs like Mass Effect (action heavy!) so the ones I mentioned above should be ok to, right?

[Jannik]

Subbi:
I've said that I don't think this thread should be limited to any specific genre or genre definition. So you can contribute in as broad or narrow fashion as you like. There are no rules

People are different, so it only makes sense to explain my own thoughts/list. Interactive storytelling doesn't mean the same to everybody.

[rtrooney]

This reminds me of a sign I saw outside an automobile repair facility. It read:

We Specialize in Foreign and Domestic Cars.

That's good, but what else is there? The definition of what you specialize in is so broad that it eliminates specialization.

The same would seem to apply to the definition of Interactive Storytelling. If the definition is so broad that anyone can define it however he/she likes, then there is no definition.

[Jannik]

A few points/suggestions:

1. I've already admitted that I started out by being too vague about my own thoughts behind my personal game list, and I've addressed that. But I don't think that I should necessarily be the judge/the one who defines interactive storytelling. Starting the thread doesn't give me authority.

But maybe the majority just prefer guided discussions, at least in this case. I like both forms, and some of the best discussions I've had with friends/family, in college and on the internet started with a broad topic/definition.

Actually I've already given my personal definition. Yes it's broad, but look at the Dear Esther thread, read articles about interactive storytelling, and you'll find that many people use the term interactive storytelling quite loose. Heck, theorists even argue over the term "interactive".

What I wrote:
"No, I'm thinking of games where you use interactivity to progress the story".

While broad, I think it's a fair bit narrower than the car analogy

So - A game could have cutscenes, etc, as long as the story is mainly progressed by player-action. IMO.

2. If I had defined interactive storytelling from the beginning, then there's a chance people would complain and/or brake the definition in a few posts. I've seen that numerous times on forums, when the topic starter made strict "rules". So I chose to make it broad. I don't think that makes my "topic concept" bad. I just didn't want to stuff peoples throat with definitions.

3. I propose that, a) we use my definition above, b) someone else creates a definition and we use that, c) we use the Wikipedia definition.

Wikipedia:
"Interactive Storytelling [IS] is a form of digital entertainment in which users create or influence a dramatic storyline through actions, either by issuing commands to the story's protagonist, or acting as a general director of events in the narrative. Interactive storytelling is a medium where the narrative, and its evolution, can be influenced in real-time by a user."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_storytelling

- It sort of comes from the Chris Crawford school of thought. It's very interesting, but personally I find it a bit too narrow in a game context, because it states they the player should be able to influence the narrative - far from all games let you do that, and there would be much less to discuss/list. But as I said, I'm fine with using this definition.

EDIT: Re-reading your post, rtrooney, I'm actually not sure if your post was meant as "neutral" or if you agreed or disagreed.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by Jannik

EDIT: Re-reading your post, rtrooney, I'm actually not sure if your post was meant as "neutral" or if you agreed or disagreed.

Per the problem discussed, all, some or none of the above. You choose.