Too much story in modern games? *spawn

[kache]

Hyperbole

The games with the best most engrossing stories this gen have been RPGs. So games with the greatest amount of non-linearity, branching narrative, player choice and agency.

But of course I'm speaking too much truth... I should shut my filthy mouth and allow those who want to nerd rage over the silly notion of movies spoiling games to continue to rage in irrational incandescent choler.

gimme a break

True, but how many good RPGs with good story have been released in the last 2 years and how many movie-like games with good stories?
Because the last good RPG I remember was TW2, and that was what, 3 years ago now?

 

[Prophecy2k]

True, but how many good RPGs with good story have been released in the last 2 years and how many movie-like games with good stories?
Because the last good RPG I remember was TW2, and that was what, 3 years ago now?

Why would you arbitrarily choose to only look at the last 2-3 years now when your original statement (which was false) was that "the games this gen with the best stories have all basically been movies".

Doesn't matter how many movie-like games have been released, your statement was objectionably false. And even in that, this gen I count only one "movie-like game" (i.e. Dragon's lair on PSN), in terms of the level of interactively one would generally expect from a video game.

Some games this gen have been linear. Some have had a few too many QTEs, cutscenes, and scripted moments. But absolutely no AAA major releases have been "basically movies". That's pure and simple, baseless hyperbole.

I wasn't gonna even answer your question about RPGs, but ok i'll bite. There have been a long list of fantastic RPGs this gen: The Witcher series, Mass Effect series, Skyrim, Fallout series, Dragon Age Origins etc etc. And that's just western RPGs. Then there's ones like Valkyria chronicles, Blue Dragon and Lost Odysee from the japanese devs. Really isn't worth trying to argue. All these games/series, have been critically celebrated, and RPGs are by definition story-heavy games.

So any complaint about heavy story, or (supposed) story focus in AAA games this gen not allowing the most basic amount of player agency (i.e. becoming "too movie-like"), is totally exaggerated and completely unfounded.

 

[kache]

Why would you arbitrarily choose to only look at the last 2-3 years now when your original statement (which was false) was that "the games this gen with the best stories have all basically been movies".

Doesn't matter how many movie-like games have been released, your statement was objectionably false. And even in that, this gen I count only one "movie-like game" (i.e. Dragon's lair on PSN), in terms of the level of interactively one would generally expect from a video game.

Some games this gen have been linear. Some have had a few too many QTEs, cutscenes, and scripted moments. But absolutely no AAA major releases have been "basically movies". That's pure and simple, baseless hyperbole.

I wasn't gonna even answer your question about RPGs, but ok i'll bite. There have been a long list of fantastic RPGs this gen: The Witcher series, Mass Effect series, Skyrim, Fallout series, Dragon Age Origins etc etc. And that's just western RPGs. Then there's ones like Valkyria chronicles, Blue Dragon and Lost Odysee from the japanese devs. Really isn't worth trying to argue. All these games/series, have been critically celebrated, and RPGs are by definition story-heavy games.

So any complaint about heavy story, or (supposed) story focus in AAA games this gen not allowing the most basic amount of player agency (i.e. becoming "too movie-like"), is totally exaggerated and completely unfounded.

Heavy Rain...

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean extremes, but you do realize that a game that's so full of QTE and cutscenes that the gaming itself has a small part is closer to a movie than to a game, don't you?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Heavy Rain...

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean extremes, but you do realize that a game that's so full of QTE and cutscenes that the gaming itself has a small part is closer to a movie than to a game, don't you?

QTE's are a gameplay mechanic. And heavy rain has about the same amount of cutscenes as most story heavy games this gen.

QTEs may not be a gameplay mechanic you personally enjoy, but that doesn't exclude them as a device for interactivity within a gameworld. Also, considering that Heavy Rain's QTE mechanics are not simply binary (i.e. pass or fail, leading to a replay of said scene or event), but rather lead into various differing outcomes each progressing the game's narrative, in terms of player agency, Heavy Rain's mechanisms for "gameplay" are allowing you as a player to directly interact with not only the game's characters and world but also narrative in a more direct way than most games. Certainly not something to be excluded as "practically movies". It's a poor example. Also your definition of "gameplay" is far too limited, otherwise by that definition pointnclick adventures & text adventures are not "games" and are "basically books/cartoons". Which of course is not true.

Regardless, even if you decide to ignore common sense and reality and call something like Heavy Rain "basically a movie", considering there has been all of one game like Heavy Rain this gen, it still renders your initial statement of "the games this gen with the best stories have all basically been movies" as undeniable and demonstrably incorrect. There's no way to argue it my friend ;-)

 

[Rodéric]

QTE are BAD.
They do not offer any meaningful interactions at all, they are just mandatory "press to play video" systems that have no place in video games.
The worst offenders are those which only test our reaction time. (ie the button/key press are random and so you can't learn them.)

Why on earth would anyone think forcing people through a single meaningless button press sequence is a good idea ?

Games are about meaningful interactions, they are about choice, QTE offer none therefore they are completely inappropriate.
Almost anything else is preferable, including just playing that video w/o user input at all.

A good narrative requires tight control, games are about freedom of choice, that means integrating them well with each other is tough to say the least.

Shall we have another thread about violence and murder rewards in games ?
(Ever played a pseudo RPG ? Noticed how you are *rewarded* by XP & loot for a murder ? Did that never got you thinking ?)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why on earth would anyone think forcing people through a single meaningless button press sequence is a good idea ?

I don't like QTEs, but I can see an argument for them in a story-driven RPG like HR, which was closer to a real RPG in that you had to play a role. In a fast-paced situation like a fight where the character has to be observant of their surroundings, the opponent's actions, and make uncertain choices, a QTE is probably a better simulator of how a real person would be reacting. a highly trained combatant could have the same QTE situation but slowed down for more considered actions, represent the character's faster processing and reaction abilities in the same situation. QTE's generally aren't used that way and I don't kow why they were invented, but they could be used intelligently in a proper RPG.

Games are about meaningful interactions, they are about choice, QTE offer none therefore they are completely inappropriate.

I mostly agree, expect the definion of 'game' is being extended, hence some complaints about my argument in this thread. Some forms of entertainment, especially story driven ones, my entertain people even taking choice and interactivity away from them.

 

[ninzel]

Yes sometimes it really makes no sense to try and shoe horn stories into certain types of games. Sometimes a game is just a game.
Other times it's just poorly done storytelling. Bad voice acting,bad dialogue, inappropriate tone for the type of game etc etc.
It's a reflection of an immature medium, struggling for acceptance and as a result sometimes taking itself far too seriously leading to sometimes poor and inappropriate choices.

 

[swym]

Because the last good RPG I remember was TW2, and that was what, 3 years ago now?

I just realised TW2 can stand for both The Witcher 2 and Two Worlds 2. Which one did you mean? (Not that it matters that much, since both were actually released in 2011... Unless there's a third RPG with the same initials?)

I don't like QTEs, but I can see an argument for them in a story-driven RPG like HR, which was closer to a real RPG in that you had to play a role.

Sorry, but I don't really see how QTEs have anything to do with playing a role. The way I take it, playing a role (as opposed to just assuming one) should allow the player choice, or at least the illusion of a choice, on how a played character should act in a specific situation and how this will affect the game word. This is the thing I believe is most fundamental in true role playing game.
And so far, I can't recall any game with QTEs that actually give you the slightest kind of choice other than perhaps passing/failing the QTE having a different outcome in Quantic Dream games (and most other games don't even give you that). Absolutely no role playing here.

Which is funny, because as much as I don't like this mechanic, I always expected we'll see QTE's evolving by now into something that can feel more like a proper gaming mechanic that gives you choice. I'm talking branching QTEs which can work in a similar fashion to branching dialog choices in RPGs and adventure games, only these will happen during real-time action sequences and require you to choose quickly based on how you wish to play your character. This IS role playing.

I can imagine something like having a kind of choice in a branching QTE in a combat scene where an enemy just knocked the gun out of your hand: you have to quickly choose between reaching for your dropped gun, grabbing for an office chair and hitting the enemy with it, or just fleeing by jumping out of the window - obviously with each action having different consequences and follow-up QTEs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry, but I don't really see how QTEs have anything to do with playing a role. The way I take it, playing a role (as opposed to just assuming one) should allow the player choice, or at least the illusion of a choice, on how a played character should act in a specific situation and how this will affect the game word. This is the thing I believe is most fundamental in true role playing game.
And so far, I can't recall any game with QTEs that actually give you the slightest kind of choice other than perhaps passing/failing the QTE having a different outcome in Quantic Dream games (and most other games don't even give you that). Absolutely no role playing here.

I never played the full HR, only the demo, and it could be they didn't extend it fully. But in the demo, in a fight, you'd have to make quick choices. If they all ended up with the same outcome, that was bad design. That doesn't prove the lack of value of QTEs - only the inability of developers to use them in any worthwhile way.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think QTEs work well in God of War games apart from some timing in issues in some of them. As a finishing move or some special event they are more suitable to make things more spectacular. Regular gameplay mechanics are too limited in some situations to make something big or out of the ordinary. QTEs still retain at least some player control during the action.

 

[tuna]

I never played the full HR, only the demo, and it could be they didn't extend it fully. But in the demo, in a fight, you'd have to make quick choices. If they all ended up with the same outcome, that was bad design. That doesn't prove the lack of value of QTEs - only the inability of developers to use them in any worthwhile way.

I think the best example of Quantic Dreams game vision is in "The Taxidermist" episode. That scenario has several different outcomes and you can choose how you play it quite a bit.

I also think it is wrong to label most of HR as QTE's, I think it is more of a contextual adventure game with some interface innovations.

 

[Jedi2016]

Story itself is not inherently good or bad, it's how its implemented that's the issue. It's getting to the point where the story is taking front stage over the gameplay, and that's a problem.. a BIG problem. These are games, after all.. they're meant to be interactive. Lately we've been getting more of what I can only describe as "movies created using realtime game engines".

The question isn't story, IMO.. it's cutscenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RGORttEnzA&feature=plcp

How much longer before our "games" are no longer played at all? Where you just watch it happen over the course of six hours or so? Press X to continue, and watch the next scene...

I brought up Watch Dogs in another thread, as a big step forward (graphically, at least). But now that I think about it, the gameplay we saw is pretty standard, even for today, and full of cutscene.

 

[JB9861]

I think QTEs work well in God of War games apart from some timing in issues in some of them. As a finishing move or some special event they are more suitable to make things more spectacular. Regular gameplay mechanics are too limited in some situations to make something big or out of the ordinary. QTEs still retain at least some player control during the action.

We will see what people think about the ease of QTEs. When Ascension on occasion doesn't give you an obvious cue during a kill and the player is a bit more involved.

 

[Prophecy2k]

...
I brought up Watch Dogs in another thread, as a big step forward (graphically, at least). But now that I think about it, the gameplay we saw is pretty standard, even for today, and full of cutscene.

I think you need to go back and watch that trailer again.

There wasn't any cutscene in it except for the bit that were clearly part of the TRAILER and not exactly what you'll see when playing the final game. The gameplay segment shown was fully being played by someone in real-time. Scripted, yes. But not a cut-scene in sight.

Also, to your question:

How much longer before our "games" are no longer played at all?

I think you aren't giving developers enough credit at all. They're not imbeciles.

Ultimately stories in games garnering a greater development focus these days was always an inevitability. Generally speaking, the biggest selling games both this gen and (especially) last gen were all games lauded for both their gameplay and singleplayer narratives. Most of those games simply contained familiar gameplay mechanics that had existed long before those games release, but were improved or evolved slighty in a meaningful and entertaining way.

Stories will always get a big focus in modern AAA gaming because, like with graphics, its much easier to standout in the marketplace with a unique narrative, characters, setting etc, rather than to innovate with gameplay.

When you have studios having to crank out mutlimillion dollar AAA blockbusters in 12-18 month schedules, with little time to spend in pre-production researching new and innovative gameplay mechanics (which alone might work, but then when placed in a game might ruin it), it ends up being much easier to recycle existing game mechanics, write a compelling and unique narrative, and then script and cut-scene the game up the wazoo. Because ultimately, with all the biggest franchises, the market has proved that that's all they require to get excited about and run out and buy a title day one.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Generally speaking, the biggest selling games both this gen and (especially) last gen were all games lauded for both their gameplay and singleplayer narratives.

The plot is generally regarded as the weakest part of Call of Duty. Gran Turismo, Madden NFL, FIFA/PES, Wii [Fill in the blank], Super Mario Bros, and Mario Kart don't exactly have best stories, either.

 

[Prophecy2k]

The plot is generally regarded as the weakest part of Call of Duty. Gran Turismo, Madden NFL, FIFA/PES, Wii [Fill in the blank], Super Mario Bros, and Mario Kart don't exactly have best stories, either.

I was thinking more COD, Zelda, Mario, Halo, Gears, GOW, Uncharted, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, RDR, Assassins Creed, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls & GTA games etc.

I'll give you sports games, however i did say "generally speaking". Regardless, it becomes more obvious that my statement is true when you're not cherry-picking titles.

Also I said narrative (not plot), which encompases much more than just the plot. Narrative = story telling, setting, characters, story, presentation (graphics, sound). Basically everything that isn't directly gameplay mechanics.

 

[Prophecy2k]

The plot is generally regarded as the weakest part of Call of Duty. Gran Turismo, Madden NFL, FIFA/PES, Wii [Fill in the blank], Super Mario Bros, and Mario Kart don't exactly have best stories, either.

Also, this isn't true at all. Go and look at the reviews to see 10/10s those games get for their "enthralling", "cinematic", "epic" & "visceral" singleplayer campaigns.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I meant by the people who buy and play the games. I have yet to meet a person who doesn't work for IGN and thinks the story in Black Ops is brilliant and enthralling. You really think the games would sell 20 mil each without multiplayer?

Mario

New Super Mario Bros Wii is like a playable Stanley Kubrick movie. Mario rescuing Peach is the King Lear of the 21st century.

I'll give you sports games, however i did say "generally speaking". Regardless, it becomes more obvious that my statement is true when you're not cherry-picking titles.

I just looked at the best-selling games from this and last gen. Some, like FF7, were popular because of their stories. Many had stories, but that wasn't what made them popular (to most people, the story of GTA III was "Once upon a time I was blowing up shit in the city and getting chased by the cops and then stole a car and blew up a helicopter"). Many didn't even have a story.

 

[Jedi2016]

There wasn't any cutscene in it except for the bit that were clearly part of the TRAILER and not exactly what you'll see when playing the final game. The gameplay segment shown was fully being played by someone in real-time. Scripted, yes. But not a cut-scene in sight.

I think you should lay out your definition of "cutscene".

I define it as any moment where control of the character is taken away in order to watch something happen. Whether it happens in real-time, in-engine or not, any time you can put the controller down and the game keeps going.. that's a cutscene. And Watch Dogs had several of them. The most obvious was the conversation with his contact at the club. You're sitting there watching two characters talk, complete with multiple cameras, just like a movie, and the player has zero control over what they're seeing or hearing. And you say that's not a cutscene? Because it sure as hell isn't gameplay.

The upcoming Tomb Raider is looking even worse, IMO.

My point isn't about WD specifically, it's about the idea of "playing" a game where all you do is move from cutscene to cutscene. You watch something happen, then you move forward along a linear path, maybe shooting a couple of guys along the way, then you get to a particular spot where you push "X" to watch the next cutscene. Repeat ad infinitum. COD is pushing this concept almost to the point of satire (in fact, I've heard it theorized that Infinity Ward actually did create MW3 as satire in this regard, but that no one noticed). Go watch the first E3 demo of MW3, from 2011. If you pay attention, you'll notice that the player doesn't actually do much of anything, he's just... there. RPS did a few write-ups on this game in particular, they're a very interesting, and eye-opening, read.

I think I know where they get it from.. Japanese developers do this sort of thing quite a bit, but they're actually pretty good at balancing it with gameplay. Western developers aren't.. they're just pantomiming, and it's not working. The balance is way off.. too much just watching and not enough doing.

I saw a good post in this thread on GAF (at the end) the other day that I thought summed it up rather well, in discussing why the rumored reboot of Soul Reaver will probably be an utter disgrace:

]Soul Reaver represents the exact opposite of what the mainstream gaming industry is about now.

You moved in the world.
You changed things in that world. In a subtle way, gameplay-wise.

Nowadays, I do not know if there is a big enough audience that would even understand how this works. Imagine players that have grown up with multiplayer "experiences", "streamlined content" and wall-to-wall shooters with cover mechanisms. Imagine them trying to get back into a gaming paradigm where if you get a brand new ability, that means that SOMEWHERE in the world out there, you will access new places. No flashing light, no arrow, no cutscene - you are the one doing it.

In regards to this game specifically, sure, it will probably have the same story (with any luck), but I think it will utterly destroy all of the gameplay that made the game great. Soul Reaver had balance.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I think you should lay out your definition of "cutscene".

I define it as any moment where control of the character is taken away in order to watch something happen. Whether it happens in real-time, in-engine or not, any time you can put the controller down and the game keeps going.. that's a cutscene. And Watch Dogs had several of them. The most obvious was the conversation with his contact at the club. You're sitting there watching two characters talk, complete with multiple cameras, just like a movie, and the player has zero control over what they're seeing or hearing. And you say that's not a cutscene? Because it sure as hell isn't gameplay.

The upcoming Tomb Raider is looking even worse, IMO.

My point isn't about WD specifically, it's about the idea of "playing" a game where all you do is move from cutscene to cutscene. You watch something happen, then you move forward along a linear path, maybe shooting a couple of guys along the way, then you get to a particular spot where you push "X" to watch the next cutscene. Repeat ad infinitum. COD is pushing this concept almost to the point of satire (in fact, I've heard it theorized that Infinity Ward actually did create MW3 as satire in this regard, but that no one noticed). Go watch the first E3 demo of MW3, from 2011. If you pay attention, you'll notice that the player doesn't actually do much of anything, he's just... there. RPS did a few write-ups on this game in particular, they're a very interesting, and eye-opening, read.

I think I know where they get it from.. Japanese developers do this sort of thing quite a bit, but they're actually pretty good at balancing it with gameplay. Western developers aren't.. they're just pantomiming, and it's not working. The balance is way off.. too much just watching and not enough doing.

I saw a good post in this thread on GAF (at the end) the other day that I thought summed it up rather well, in discussing why the rumored reboot of Soul Reaver will probably be an utter disgrace:



In regards to this game specifically, sure, it will probably have the same story (with any luck), but I think it will utterly destroy all of the gameplay that made the game great. Soul Reaver had balance.

I would define a cutscene in it's prototypical sense, i.e. an essentially short "movie" within a game used to divulge some part of the game's overarching narrative. I guess you could go ahead and lump dialogue sections in along with it, but then it diminishes the justification for your complaints about cutscenes in games in the first place.

Surely you can't be so sensitive as to be incensed over a 10-20 sec dialogue section in a game? These are nothing new. And if something like that in the Watch Dogs demo causes you to cry fire & brimstone and complain about games becoming movies, then perhaps modern AAA gaming is no longer for you?

To me, short narrative sections, cutscenes, scripted scenes and any device used for story exposition in games are not in themselves inherently a bad things. These are not the things gamers should be demonizing on account of the fact that so many developers don't get the balance between story telling and gameplay right (and I agree with your point that its the balance that's most important).

If you look at games like Skyrim, like GTA, like God of War, like Mass Effect, like the old RTS games of the 90s/00s like Warcraft 3 etc, people loved these games because of their superb balance between gameplay and narrative. They all had compelling narratives and thus were able to capture a large section of their potential audiences because they got the balance right. I personally used to love the old RTS games like Warcraft, Starcraft, Dawn of War and such solely because of their stories. I cared very little for the RTS mechanics, and the gameplay was simply a means to get to the next cutscene. There were/are many like me. Sure there are also lots of people who just like to screw around in games with the gameplay mechanics and skip all the story, but then even those gamers don't care to buy games that don't get the balance between narrative/gameplay right.

Without plot, setting, characters, atmosphere, narrative and thus context, games would quickly get very boring, as contrary to popular internet belief, there wouldn't be any magical rennaisance of super innovative gameplay mechanics coming from all developers. Rather we'd get the same old tired gameplay mechanics, we've been screwing around with for the last 30 years, recycled and reskinned again and again.

Without story and narrative, new iterations of the next COD, Halo, GTA, Zelda, AC etc etc would be decidedly worthless, as no-one would be motivated to spend $60 for the same game again but with a few tweaked features.

The argument is ultimatelty fruitless.

Neither story nor gameplay needs to get a greater focus. Instead both should be balanced and equally polished to the best that it can be. However at the same time, we gamers should not dellude ourselves into thinking that because some games seem to fail in that balance (between narrative and gameplay) that it should be interpreted as games becoming too story-focussed, and thus story in games now being the root of all evil and something that should be expunged at all costs.

Games simply need to be better, and to achieve this devs need to take more risks. Which to me is the real root of the issue.

Also, re the new tomb raider & watch dogs, can we please wait to actually play the games before presuming everything about their design and structure based on a few short trailers (which are themselves not designed to show off gameplay anyway).