Dizazter's forum posts
Name a movie made off the video game, where the movie even came close to following the original story line?
Follow up question: if so many of these video games have such compelling stories, why do the movie versions almost always abandon the existing story lines?
" @Dizazter said:The one thing you are overlooking is the fact that video games literally put the player into a person's role, putting an entirely different narrative to a story. Also, and more importantly, a video game can have potentially upwards of 40+ hours involved in the story. Compare this to the average of 2 hours per movie and it becomes apparent that character development and storyline progression can move much more smoothly in a video game if done properly. "Movies will always have much better stories, acting and cinematography, because they don’t have to be concerned with gameplay, and everything is pre-rendered. So to me, if a great story is what you’re looking for, you need to go see a great movie
I definitely hear you about the first person narrative. But I don't think that's impossible to do in a movie, and keep in mind most games are never 100% told from first person.
But I think you're wrong about the 40+ hour thing as being an asset. There's a reason why movies are 2 hours long instead of 40 hours long. No one would watch a 40+ hour movie, Developers get you to watch their 40 hour movie by having exciting gameplay.
But I think this all gets into a much more complex area of "why gamers play keep playing games", and it can be a combination of a myriad of reasons from gameplay, story, exploration, social interaction, competition, challege, to just shameless addiction to progression. So yeah, I think saying anyone just continues to play a game just for the story or just for the game play isn't realistic, as others have noted.
Thank God I've actually gotten some intelligent responses here. At first I was worried I was just going to get a bunch of people whining cause I've shown their religious beliefs (hard core story focused gaming) in a bad light. I was telling anyone how they should play games. My only goal here is to make people aware that story is a just a part of the game, and not the whole thing.
So I think most reasonable people here can understand you can't have a game just for the story, and about the story, and screw all the rest, because without solid game play, environment, and other elements (depending on the genre), it is just a linear story that you could just be reading in a book.
Really good points. I definitely hear where you're coming from." I don't feel a pressing need to play through any game more than once tbh, and I find it difficult to get into a game with no context or story, no matter how good the gameplay is (there have been a couple of rare exceptions). I wouldn't say I'm playing for the story necessarily, but it's usually important to me that it's there, or at least that I know there's a set point where I will be done with a game. For me, great gameplay with no context is more like a race car with no race track.
I guess it depends on what you want out of games. If you buy them as something to fill your free time, then sure, you probably want to squeeze as many hours out of it (with replayability, multiplayer, whatevs) as possible, but I prefer to think of it as spending my free time on experiencing the game. If CoD4 can deliver an awesome campaign experience -without an ounce of fat on it- in 5 or 6 hours then that, imo, is far better than the weaker, padded 12 hour campaign most other developers would have managed. I don't regret paying full price for that campaign at all - they more than delivered and they did it in a timely manner. Multiple endings shouldn't necessarily be treated as an incentive to replay games. They can / should exist primarily to give weight to your choices the first time through. Do games like Deus Ex or Dragon Age or The Witcher or New Vegas become a better experience from playing through them multiple times and seeing every possible outcome? I don't think so. Not only are there diminishing returns on subsequent playthroughs, but it also often has a detrimental effect on how you remember your first play through, because you start to see through the smoke and mirrors that these games rely on so heavily. I think there's a lot of merit in David Cage's (Quantic Dream, Heavy Rain) theory that these games benefit from only being played once. "
Very true about how there are different reasons people play games. Some need to get a lot of mileage out of one game, others don't have much time and want a somewhat quick and clean experience out of each one.
I'm also with you about the smoke and mirrors with the multiple endings. And I thought Heavy Rain was an excellent game. Ironically the platinum trophy for Heavy Rain requires that you play through all the endings.
" Mostly this is genre specific, but I'm much more willing to put up with mediocre gameplay if the story is entertaining. Story is more important in RPGs than FPS games most of the time. Separating out the "story" from the "environment" or "experience" seems wrongheaded to me. The environment of the game is often part of story, and the story central to the experience. I think story is important because without it (and decent characters), we don't identify with what is actually going on in the game. That's not to say we can't have good games without good stories, but that the best games have everything.Yeah I supposed different gamers are willing to accept different substandard parts of their games, depending on what they prefer.
The suggestion that older games like Pit Fall wouldn't have been better if they didn't have a story is pretty laughable. They didn't have stories because they couldn't. Games can have stories now, and are better when they do. In depth stories usually mean the developers have spent more time making a coherent, interesting world around their games. Games with interesting, coherent worlds are more likely to keep my attention. "
But to me, I can definitely separate story from environment and experience. Minecraft is a great game, where you have an incredible environment, and a great experience separated from any sort of story. It exists.
But good point about the older games. They didn't have the option of having elaborate story lines. But I think you're off target by thinking that adding an elaborate story automatically makes them better. It could also very much make them worse.
But honestly I feel like the more games focus on a linear (often predictable) storyline, the more disposable games become. You "play through the story" toss the game, and move on to the next one. This of course, works out great for the developers.
But what I think it laughable is the concept of a good game without good gameplay. That is what makes a game....a game. Eliminate gameplay entirely from a game and what do you have? 9 times out of 10: a poorly paced movie. Thats why I think in great games, game play is used to create the story, instead of just a bunch of silly crap you do inbetween cut scenes.
" Why do you see reviewers put a focus on a games story in their reviews? It's because most reviewers are writers first, gamers second. If someone has decided in life that they want to spend their life writing, that person probably reads a lot and applies a literary fiction approach to reviewing. Why does it seem like the people you meet on gaming forums put such a high significance on story? That is because a lot of people want to become a game reviewer in the future and they see forums as a good place to practice their craft. I for one don't really care about story too much in games. Like you mentioned, if I want a story to analyze and dissect, I will read a book. I play games to have fun first and foremost. Hell, I can even say that when I play games, I don't want to think to much. "Hmm, really good point man. Many game reviewers studied journalism, so yeah, obviously story is going to be their focus,
" @Dizazter said:I'm not sure what your statement would be if you take of the story doesn't matter part. Are you just saying I have a narrow definitions of video games for no reason then? OR are you Saying I have a narrow definition of video games because I feel story isn't the most important thing? Either way doesn't make much sense." @FateOfNever said:Well then, just take that part off and my statement still stands. Though the statement works fine as is, as multiple times throughout your post you said that a game's story can be horrible or almost non-existent, or completely non-existent, which would mean to say - the story doesn't matter because the rest of it is good enough that the story is inconsequential to the experience. While you do mention that story can have an effect, you still treat it as being probably the last thing a game should be concerned about. For example - if your definition of 'video game' is Super Mario Bros. style platformer, fighting game, or FPS - you'd probably be right. But to say that the game play is far more important in, say, an RPG or a sandbox-esque game like RDR, GTA4, or Deadly Premonition, then I would say you're wrong. Does that mean that the game play doesn't matter either? No, but it means in games like that, it doesn't matter HOW amazing your game play is if the person playing the game feels no reason to keep playing the game; and the best way to do that is through a compelling story. It all depends on the KIND of game that you're playing when it comes down to it. "" You're looking at a very narrow definition of what video games are if you think story doesn't matter to them. "I never said story doesn't matter. I simply said it's not THE MOST IMPORTANT part of a game. "
But fair enough, I probably should have emphasized the importance of difference genres and how story matters more to some than to others. But you have to admit there are amazingly great games with no story. What's the story with minecraft? Pacman? Basically non-existent. That was the point I was trying to make, there's great games with no story, but no great games without great game play. Not to say you can't have both. And people are coming to a false conclusion if they think I'm saying that "because there are games with no story that are great, therefore video game stories are meaningless." Obviously it depends on the game.
Yeah I'd say gameplay is more important in RDR and GTA4, but not A LOT more important. But you really thought the story in GTA4 was that great? I thought the voice acting was fantastic, but the story was pretty boring and instantly forgettable. Maybe story and voice acting you consider to be in the same category though. Do you even remember the story to GTA4? I don't, and I spent a lot of hours on that game. Guy comes from eastern europe, finds cousin, kills people, struggles with morality?
But another point I was trying to make is that really video games is a bad place to go if you're looking for a good story. 99% of stories in video games aren't as good as 99% of the stories in books and movies. And that is why I was trying to emphasize the importance in games to allow the player to create his or her own story through the game experience, instead of just follow a scripted bread crum trail along a pre-determined path.
You make an interesting point about the player "needing a reason to keep playing the game". And that's definitely a more complex topic. But if story is the only reason to "keep playing the game" then when the story is complete, the player loses all reason to continue playing, correct? I feel gameplay is a more compelling reason to keep playing. But really, it's the "Experience" (fun) is why people keep playing games. I don't mean EXP. Because if people only played for the story, why would anyone ever play multiplayer games? They play because it's an enjoyable experience. I know people who have a ton of fun playing zombies on black ops. What's the story? Story is you're under siege by zombies, survive as long as you can. That's it! And people play for hours and hours.
So to summarize. I'm not saying story doesn't matter. But I think very, very rarely is it the most important factor in a game. A movie with a great story beats an unplayable game with a great story, every time. Because the purpose of a game is to be playable. It's meant to be played. If a linear story is all that matters, there are already much better media for that.
" You're looking at a very narrow definition of what video games are if you think story doesn't matter to them. "I never said story doesn't matter. I simply said it's not THE MOST IMPORTANT part of a game.
" I don't think I can honestly say I've played a single game that I felt had a compelling and well-written story. Really I think the subject is pretty much irrelevant to me. "I would tend to agree with you. Take the best story line in a video game ever made, and you can find 1000 movies with better stories, and 100,000 books.
Blog = opinion." @kratier said:
Since you can't reply directly to said children, i guess i'll reply to you instead. I have simply grown sick and tired of people on the internet claiming their opinion to be fact. I know it's an opinion, you... seem to know it's an opinion, but reading what the guy wrote, he clearly does not. "
It's not an encyclopedia or a history book. There's still people that don't know this? Come on.
But I countlessly say in here, "I think", "I'm of the opinion" or "to me...." etc.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that's what he meant by "opinions, opinions" I think he meant "everyone has their own opinion on this".
I’ve noticed more and more over the years that gamers and some reviewers seem to judge the worth of a game based on “the story”. For some reason, I think the story because a simple thing for people to focus on. But I’m of the opinion that story is not what video games are about, they’re about the gameplay. Story is secondary. And it’s fair to say that different gamers play different games for different reasons. But – if you’re only playing a game for the story, I think you’re missing the point.
An example:
Game A has absolutely amazing gameplay, but the story is terrible. Game A is still enjoyable.
Game B has terrible gameplay, but an absolutely amazing story. Game B is a nightmare to play.
See? Story can “add” to the fun of gameplay, but it is no replacement, yet a game can still be fun in spite of a terrible story IF the gameplay is good enough. As games focus more and more on story, what seems to happen is that they’re competing with movies. Which to me, leaves video games horribly outgunned. Movies will always have much better stories, acting and cinematography, because they don’t have to be concerned with gameplay, and everything is pre-rendered. So to me, if a great story is what you’re looking for, you need to go see a great movie, actually much better yet, read a good book.
Here’s a good analogy: race cars. It is like saying your main thing you like about a good race car is how it looks. YES – many race cars are gorgeous looking, and that’s great and all. But they are designed to go fast and handle corners, looking pretty is secondary. If what you care about most is how it looks, there’s no point in spending hundreds of thousands or even millions on engineering to make it go insanely fast, and have great handling. You can just go get yourself a scale model of a prettier car. But saying that the focus of the race car should be it’s looks, will make it lose races. Everyone likes seeing a gorgeous race car win, but does anyone care about the amazingly gorgeous race care that game in 12?
One big factor for me about how fun a game is, is its replayability. And let’s be honest, if story is the main thing, how many times are you gonna want to go through the same story? I’m not saying it impossible, there’s certainly movies I’ve seen half a dozen times. But 40+ hour games? Not something I’d see myself doing multiple times to relive a story I already know what is gonna happen.
Look at classic games. The stories are non-existent or laughable. Pac man? Donkey Kong? Pit Fall? Any story for these games could be described in probably 2 sentences max. Did that make them bad games? Nope – they had great gameplay and were highly replayable.
And I think the problem is, that for video games, we need to not focus on “the story”, instead focus on “the experience”, which in fact, is the story that is unique to each gamer who plays the game. Video games are an interactive media, focusing on a linear story takes away from that. And this coming up with 20 different endings is a band aid measure, slapped on at the end when you realize, oh crap, everyone who plays this has the exact same experience, why in the hell would anyone play this more than once? Problem solved!!!: Multiple endings!!! (+100 to *weak*)
Something else besides gameplay I feel is more important than the story: environment. The actual game world you’re in. To me, if it is a pointless, boring, rehashed, cookie-cutter looking place, where I really don’t give a crap about what is around the next corner, it doesn’t matter how good the story is. But an amazing environment, which is exciting to explore, can really compensate for a bad/nonexistent story. This is where games prevail over movies. Movies don’t really have an environment, they have a set, which is recorded once, and never changes. Video games however, can have an interactive, exploreable, changing environment. The success of minecraft is a good example of this.
Log in to comment