Unofficial Tex Murphy

KOTOR? It's an alright story. If it was a book I'd read it, finish it, and go "that was alright." Bioware does a good job in providing stories that in their genre fit perfectly and are good for their setting. KOTOR would be a good "Star Wars" novel. Baldur's Gate would be a good "Forgotten Realms," novel. My problem is I find those books to be "average," as far as reading materials go.

Bioshock? First it is set for a prequel and sequel, so they did such a good job of telling the story someone here thought it was stand alone. This game is great in setting a mood and level designs are above average for a FPS. For an FPS the story is amazing. For a "story," it's actually not even as good as KOTOR. The "twist," in the middle was kind of shocking but overall it was one of those "WTF," moments. It didn't make a whole lot of sense (because the flashback to the very beginning of the game is different than what actually happened to the majority of players). If this was a book I wouldn't finish it. If it was a movie it would be a "B Movie," and likely on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Max Payne 1 or 2? It was a fun story (2nd more so). For the genre it would be in in books it would be above average.

Deus Ex is a good example of another above average story.

I think all these examples just point out that in the game world we don't have a "Shawshank," "Godfather," "Lolita," or even a John Grisham novel caliber story out there.

Pandora Directive is easily storywise one of the top 5 games of all time. If it was a movie do you think we'd all refer to is as one of the 5 best of all time?

Games generally lack in stories and the guys that write the stories could never make it as a screenwriter or author for the most part (look at Chris Roberts and his Wing Commander movie).

The sad fact is that there aren't many "Aaron Conners," types out there coming up with the stories behind our games. That is a shame.

You have to admit that it is more difficult getting a story to fit with gameplay than a page or a silver screen. As such, you have to take it for what it is.

As a book, sure Bioshock would be boring. But it's a game. And AS a game, it's a damn good story.

Is my point.

But I am also drunk so please disregard faulty brainmeat.

-Fred

Fred Buer wrote:You have to admit that it is more difficult getting a story to fit with gameplay than a page or a silver screen. As such, you have to take it for what it is.

As a book, sure Bioshock would be boring. But it's a game. And AS a game, it's a damn good story.
-Fred

There is no doubt that gameplay makes it more difficult to get a story across. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible. The older Infocom games had a couple that were incredibly deep.

My point is that games don't have the great stories yet. The medium is still relatively young though. At some point someone is going to combine great story and good game play and have a hit on their hands.

I'm not dissing Bioshock, heck I think it was well worth the $60 I paid for it.

Looking forward to Heavy Rain. I wanna see how that comes across. Like the guy behind the project (same guy who was behind Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy) said, it's all about re-inventing interactivity.

-Fred

"Shawshank," "Godfather," "Lolita," or even a John Grisham novel caliber story out there.

I know exactly what you mean, but I thought interesting to bring up that none of those movies could ever make great games if you stuck to the story.

We have two problems story-wise. First one is studios still don't see fit to get pro writers. Second one being there is very little previous experience on game story-telling, let alone classes on game creative writing. Sure a good writer could put an outstanding story together but getting it to work in a game context, taking advantage of the context and being specifically tailored for the medium is something else entirely. We have synergy between pace, dialogues, general orientation and images/music in movies, but a game is entirely different. It's the next step on the evolution scale.

So much potential still untapped when you think about it though.

I think by far the most craziest stories in video games would have to be Omikron the Nomad Soul.
Its the only game that I've ever played that actually acknowledges itself as a video game. (well aside from Metal Gear Solid 2 but that was more an easter egg. "TURN OFF THE GAME CONSOLE NOW SNAKE!" much like Psycho Mantis from MGS1 with his Memory Card reading.)

Nomad Soul assumes that you bought the game, but that the game was actually designed by demonic forces to trick a consumer into buying the game, running it on their PC and loosing their soul to the virtual world.

Sadly the game is full of Bugs and crap gameplay (A broken FPS on top of Adventure game elements.. YUCK!). But the story is great, David Bowie had a huge influence on the game's story and environment (he even provided the soundtrack).

Omikron 2 is apparently being worked on by Quantic Dream and sounds like they're going to blow our minds as to how far you can push a living breathing game world.

Also if Aaron Conners was going to work with any author I'd want it to be William Gibson since working on his stuff is incredibly challenging but as Brian Fargo of Interplay discovered its very rewarding. (since Neuromancer basically got the ball rolling for Interplay back in the 1980s.) He's IMO the most ideal person I'd like to see working with Conners.

Best story ever still goes to Grim Fandango. Period.

-Fred

PS: If you're wondering, PD and Overseer share a 2nd place together with Gabriel Knight 2, on my list.

Frank wrote:

"Shawshank," "Godfather," "Lolita," or even a John Grisham novel caliber story out there.

I know exactly what you mean, but I thought interesting to bring up that none of those movies could ever make great games if you stuck to the story.

They've tried with the Godfather already and it wasn't a bad game. It just wasn't a great game. They have a game based on Godfather II in the works.

Does it have potential? Surely.

Frank wrote:
We have two problems story-wise. First one is studios still don't see fit to get pro writers. Second one being there is very little previous experience on game story-telling, let alone classes on game creative writing. Sure a good writer could put an outstanding story together but getting it to work in a game context, taking advantage of the context and being specifically tailored for the medium is something else entirely. We have synergy between pace, dialogues, general orientation and images/music in movies, but a game is entirely different. It's the next step on the evolution scale.

So much potential still untapped when you think about it though.

Actually most of the companies now require you to have some experience in the entertainment industry or the publishing industry to get a job even writing dialogue for games.

It's all really about synergy if you ask me. It's about combining the great writer with the great game designer. I truly believe PD may well be one of the greats examples of a combination of writer/designer to result in amazing product.

I definitely believe that the potential of this medium has been greatly untapped. So far we've had some people out there really start to master the game play aspects of the medium. Someday (hopefully soon) we'll have a game show us just what the potential really is.

It's going to be really interesting to see how they can make this adventure game unique and veer away from the trends of the mediocrity seen in some adventure games these days. I look forward to it.

I'd add it goes beyond getting the right people together. When I say companies don't grasp enough the importance of a story, I mean they don't have the true equivalent of a director. Project managers or head developers, yes, but no one who assumes the similar role of a director. Someone with background in the movie or writing world is a tad irrelevant. Truth be told, many people here are qualified to write dialogues, and some showed times and times again they can put a good story together.

I'll try to summarize what I mean by director in the simplest way. To me, synergy means telling the story through gameplay. If you prefer, using the elements of the game to tell story, and to use the story to further enhance the gameplay. No cutscenes should be necessary to advance a story, belonging mainly to the film industry. In-game dialogues and movements, sure, but cutscenes, for instance, would have no purpose in a perfect synergy.

Let me paraphrase this with movies. John Carpenter is a true director. You can like or dislike his movies, it has no bearing on his profound understanding of what movies are about, as well as his role as a director. The intro of The Thing is a perfect example of his craft, and right off the bat I can't think of any more effective or perfect intro to a movie than this film. The helicopter chasing the dog in the snowy field not only establishes right away the location of the story through scenery, the action unveiling before our eyes sets the tone for the entire movie and immediately captivates the viewer. This scene tells more about the story than any dialogue could've provided. This IS what movies are about, and illustrates the actual job of a director, which is to bring together the story through the images we see and the sounds we hear.

Anything we see on screen is meant to advance on the plot. This is the purpose of this medium. In this light, many working directors are mediocre to poor. Ridley Scott is another example of a good director who understands his craft.

Double post to cut the length

With this in mind, it's the director position that's missing in the game industry. It is, again, someone who understands the purpose of the actions we pose in-game are to further advance the story. Deus Ex is perhaps the only example that comes to mind of an actual effort towards that direction. Throughout the game, all you knew about the story was how much you would find out yourself, as a player, through your own actions and investigations. Once your objectives were completed your "mission" didn't end there with a cut-scene and a briefing for the next level. You could always snoop around, question people, hack through your boss' or brother's emails, investigate certain areas. Of course you could just move on to the next objectives and "level" and miss out on important story elements or clues. The end result was a bit clumsy at times and the pace wasn't consistent, but it certainly is a prehistoric version of what synergy is all about.

The original Half Life was also fairly effective at combining story and gameplay, although it has to be said there was very little story to be told. But nonetheless, a commendable effort. No cutscenes and story unveiling through in-game events.

To Tex's defense, most of the cutscenes were necessary at the time because technology didn't allow us to play through those actions in-game. Interactivity with the environment is essential for true synergy, and at the time it simply wasn't possible for Tex. Today's games have very little excuses though, and tomorrow's will have none at all.

Well put, sir. I would add that Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy details advancement of story through gameplay as well.

-Fred

Half-Life has cut scenes, albeit they're in game engine and don't "cut away," but the essence of what you're referring to is there.

PD's loan problem and one that got bigger with Overseer was the length of certain scenes. I don't think players mind the story progressing due to their actions, but I think they have an issue with sitting and waiting longer than say 120 seconds. I think in Overseer there is a cut scene that was longer than 10 minutes! Heck, the last Metal Gear Solid game had cut scenes that were just too damn long.

As to the industry not having a great director, I'm not sure about that at all. I believe some of the guys at Bioware, Lionshead, etc. would definitely fall in the category of people who understand the medium and how to interact the story into game play. The problem is that while they're doing a good job of it, the stories themselves are lacking the depth/creativity/etc. of a truly great story.

Look at KOTOR and Mass Effect. Both did a great job of telling the story and having the player be a part of it. Both used slightly different "action engines," for the fighting. However they used the same conversation trees, character screens, etc. It was a system that worked. Both as "stories," go just aren't that great.

So yes, I do believe it's likely to be a combination of existing game designer and new writer to cause an uproar and show the true potential of the medium.

As to my statement about needing experience let me clarify:

Most jobs for writing in the industry today want the person they hire to have been published in either the entertainment industry, gaming industry, or had a novel/short story published.

These are things they look for and use to qualify someone. I'm not sure I agree with it at all. I think they should judge based solely on the writing examples provided and not past accomplishments.

Fred, I'm more and more anxious to get my paws on Indigo.

Lotus, I guess we'll settle somewhere in the middle I still feel there's a profound lack of understanding, mainly due to gameplay mechanics taking too much place in the industry. I'd compare it to the how much movies deviated from their primary objective after Star Wars came out and displayed its amazing special effect toys in the late 70s.

Where we do certainly agree is how poor the actual stories tend to be, even when writers with "experience" are called upon. My concern with your depiction of the industry, which I consider accurate considering your knowledge, is the fact that writers are, as you put it, hired, somewhere along the way and judged on previous accomplishments.

A game, like a song, symphony, painting, poem, sculpture, novella, movie or novel, first and foremost expresses a story. It is, and always has been the desire to communicate our stories and feelings that spawned art. While the medium varies, the motivation behind them is the same. A movie starts with a script pitch, not the idea for a new special effect with a story eventually written around it. We create or modify musical instruments because we look for a specific sound to express what we have to "say" through musical notes. I doubt many people figured they'd build a sound machine before thinking about what they'd use it for.

How many games started with an engine before getting some story patched to it? Would it be exaggerated to say the vast majority of them? This is where I insist, again, on how little understanding there is, at least, of the eventual potential of this medium as well as the core motivation. I will grant there are exceptions however and I don't seem to give them their due credit. It's just that I haven't been impressed in years and tend to get a little cynical over time

Frank,

Interestingly enough the GDC here (Game Developers Conference) in Austin has been discussing "story," a lot. BIOWARE had a big presentation on Story and shockingly so did id Software.

The differences in their approach to the matter is amazing. Id claims that part of the story is every action the player makes and that many think their stories are simple and they may be, but he says they're present and in the past relied heavily upon the imagination of the player. RAGE their new game is vastly different and story is supposedly a top priority for the project. He hid the "story," aspect in a tech speech. The tech he also discussed (why PS3 sucks, why 360 is an "almost great," product, why PCs rock) was really cool too.

It seemed to me that all the people I got to talk to that "Story," is growing in importance. Two CEOs I spoke with were convinced that we're not too far from another "ground breaking," release where a game will reshape the industry based on the ultimate combination: game play, game mechanics, Audio & Visual FX, and story.

It appears that some of the companies are starting to look at working with truly established writers. One company mentioned they were in talks with Joe Hill (son of Stephen King) for instance.

So while you and I both remain cynical it appears that the people making the decisions are aware of the potential. They're just still too scared to take any real risks.