From a gamer to developers, where are..

Games as they are can never be as good narratively as movies.
Concentrating on a narrative while playing a game is something not many people can, or are willing to do.
Nor are they willing, or able to fill in the long stretches between narrative interludes with their own memory and imagination to keep up the story.
Patches of story and narrative here and there, by form of cutscenes and npc babblings just either allow for a short break in gameplay and enjoy some pretty visuals, or direct the player to the next objective.

Edit: It's funny, but when I think of games with good stories, ICO and SoTC come to my mind
Both games where there is very little narrative and just few cutscenes, and actually a very basic story.
I guess it's because of the strong athmosphere and that they remain in your mind as a good book does after youve stopped reading it, so you kinda unconsciously evolve the world and story inside your head.

 

Morrowind - Loved it. Thought it was the greatest thing ever when it launched.
Oblivion - Overall I felt disapointed by it. It's probably because I already played the HELL out of MW - plus the 2 expansion packs. And Oblivion just felt like a graphics upgrade. (Even then, it seems only the world got an upgrade, the characters are still all ugly and poorly animated) Story telling did not get any better.

Deus Ex - One of my favorite games of all time.
Deus Ex2 - For me, probably the biggest disapointment of all time.

Kotor1 - I love!
Kotor2 - Bored me.

It seems like games with branching dialog trees/storylines have just not really gotten better with all the other technology. The tech we are seeing is still in the stone ages. And when you are playing a game where almost everyother tech area has improved by several multiples, it's just sad.

 

Personally, I believe that genre defining games can't be made with the intent to profit. They must be sponsered works, done for the sake of art. That's why I'm starting a business that will be able to fund a game development firm, profit or not. Sure I will probably loose 50 million or so on the first 4 games that all flop, but have fantastic cult followings. Then on the 5th game, which by chance appeals to a much larger audience, I have those cult followers to spread the word. Next thing you know, I'm raking in $200 million and it's all worth it! Then I'd probably just sell the IP for another $200 million or start a spin-off company to milk the franchise, and use that funding with my other company money to keep making awesome new IP. I don't care about having a big lump of cash at the end of it all, it's about the experiance and universes I can create.

At the same time, I also think that genuinely new experiances, given high polish and quality marketing, can't fail. It's just that many people get wrapped up the the details of gameplay mechanics, they forget the feeling and experance the game evokes, then they wonder why it doesn't sell so well. Sure your mechanics can be innovative, but if it's still the compete and control category of experance it's just another RTS. The mass market is too unrefined too appreciate subtle gameplay differences. They like the shift to be raw and shocking, like the contrast between a adventure and FPS games or between Doom 3 and GTA3. If the developer only explores truely new or under-represented experiances, eventually they will hit a gusher and make barrels of cash! How do you think all the truely major franchises (i.e. Doom, FF, GTA) got started?

 

I agree with this. It's not like movies where you have two hours to finish it up.

 

this is a beautiful topic that has deep roots in a general dissapointment in todays game market for me. Games today for the most part frankly suck. no offense to the developers here - I know there are external pressures which force the majority of the shovelware onto the market. My theory is this is the majority of whats wrong with the games market today is based on the fact that for the vast majority, the games market is run by share holders who have one goal - to turn a profit. The passion for the game has taken a backseat to money and is the true spur in the industry's innovative side.

Innovation and excellence will not be brought to the forefront until one of two things happen.
1) the games industry slowly gets bought out by wealthy enthusiastic gamer/entrepeanuers.

2) gamers stop buying the uninspired shovelware and the investers connect the dots.

 

I disagree, I don't think the percentage of good/great games has ever changed. Having played games since '79, I think there was MORE shovelware back in the days. I think our nostalgia glosses over that fact. E.T. anyone ...

Shifty, I can see your point about stories, Galaga is my "GGOTA", and there is indeed no story. But I must say that I am looking for some emotional response for certain games (and I don't mean the emotional response of throwing my controller in frustration ). I think I loved Indigo Prophecy because it enthralled me and my wife, it was like reading a book that I couldn't put down, I just had to get to the next part of the story. I love Otogi, because it had a great story. I completely agree with the 7? ( I thought it was fewer) plots theory. Character names change but the basic premise is always the same, which actually, I don't care about. I have over 600 DVDs and I'm sure that of each genre I have they all pretty much have the same plot, for me its about the way it is retold, it doesn't bother me that it is retold.

 

I agree 100% shovelware was very prevelant then and it crashed the market. Perhaps shovelware in todays market is incorrect. I think the corect word is slow to innovate. Then again ... no. Lack of originality. Think back to nes - genesis - snes. There was shovelware but the variety and amount of quality compared to what had come last year and the year prior was truly exciting. the industry is still innovating but at a much slower pace. when ps came out, that fall there were different experiences to be had - many new ideas which were developed into great games and franchises (some not so great). What new experiences have/are coming along in this next generation? This isn't a dig at ms ( I bought a 360 after e3) but truly a question to ask yourselves as gamers.

 

I agree, you don't always need a story. the story was too much intrusive in doom 3, all the triggering cutscenes and listening to PDAs, that was boring. Far Cry is better, stupid story about a bad guy who wants to take the world with cybermutants, which you can very easily ignore yet don't lose one bit of the game itself. and listen to the story next time you play, if you want.

there's also a severe lack of Contra III type game (and also shoot'em'up games for that matter). I want big muscles, big machine gun, infinite ammo and a shitload of baddies, flying bullets and explosions on the screen, in a glorious and HARD side-scrolling game (one shot kills you). and a story which consists in "Kill the bad guy".

 

I agree with you on many of these points but I feel that we need variety and I do believe that strong stories can be woven into the games to a degree that they will not hamper gameplay but bring the player deeper into the game. (Working on this myself) I love a run and gun game as much as the next gamer but when Im fragging enemys I hate the feeling of repetition. (Same creatures, humans etc. even with different lvl designs). I want to be emerged in the title and leave real life alone for a brief time. Thats where working the flow of a game into a story is so important in my eyes. Think about how many games you have played that have decent stories but you can tell they were hurried into finishing the title at the end. The thought of what they could have been if the developers had their time to put the finishing touches on it.

Hopefully we will see it this generation but with technology (hardware and software) moving so quickly, developers will have a hard time achieving the goals given the budgets and timelines to work on titles.

 

The masses don't want great stories, they want cheap and easy thrills, and it shows quite well in game sales.

And how many of you who claim to want these great and epic stories plan on buying a Wii? I don't suppose you could tell me that grand Nintendo storyline that makes you want Mario so much, could you?

Same with Halo on MS's platforms. Sells great, highly anticipated, and has about the most generic and overdone sci-fi storyline in history.

And MGS is probably the most anticipated PS3 game I can think of right now, complete with it's overdramatic B-Movie quality storyline.


Bioshock was many peoples game of the show at E3, but I can almost guarantee it will flop as hard as the System Shock games in sales, because the game is simply too cerebral for the masses.

 

B movie quality ? mgs 3 yeah i would agree but mgs ? hell no

 

B movie at best. Like a poorly done James Bond film. (And the storylines in James Bond films aren't that good to begin with)

 

what exactly was B movie like about metal gear solid ?

 

I hope this to not be the case, however, if we go by history, this is exactly what will happen and what I think I alluded to in my OP. Although, so far this generation has been ALMOST entirely different than the past in most respects. The question should be asked of people like the OP if they actually own any of the critically acclaimed games that offer exactly what they are asking of devs. If not...

I'm still waiting for Otogi, Beyond Good and Evil, and others to become back compat., and System Shock 2 is STILL a great game years after its release.

 

Where should I start?

Let's start with the idea that an American nuclear weapons facility in Alaska could be captured and held hostage by a small armed band of thugs.

And of course there are two extremely high level people that just happen to be at this remote facility in the wilderness, because we all know how often corporate CEO's and heads of military departments like to hang out in remote Alaskan manufacturing plants.

Then, rather than bombing the facility and invaders into oblivion, the US sends in a lone goof to rescue the world. Not a special-ops team, but one lone guy who apparently specializes in hiding in cardboard boxes.

Fortunately for him every security camera in the place pans left and right, leaving big blind spots for him to run through unseen, because we all know government weapons facilities never used fixed cameras.


The whole premise of the game is B-Movie material.

 

I still have both System Shock games, and think they were a good 5 years ahead of their time in regards to gameplay and storytelling. I have extremely high hopes for Bioshock, and would love to see the game become a massive hit. Unfortunately I think the opposite will happen, and once again a truly great game won't sell because it's simply too much for most people to grasp.

 

7 specialist and a entire battalion of genome soldiers heavily armed and well trained wouldn't classify into the small armed band of thugs

and apparently you haven't played the game because it was explained why the darpa chief along with the armstech president where there and why US didn't bombed the whole facility to kingdom come and send only one agent.

And as far as the cameras ..yeah that was stupid , although so was also the fact that snake was surprised that there where security cameras there

 

I don't know how accurate a representation that is of MGS, but regards B movies, you've described a story with far less plot holes and implausibilities than most top Hollywood flicks - hardly the definition of B movie

 

Bolded parts just reek of B-movie. Sorry. (the bolded "snake" is because only a B-movie main character would be called "snake"...)