Reasons why game stories cannot resononate.

[darkrage61]

Some games CAN be art, it's not at all a "blind alley" for developers to want to make games that aim for something a little deeper then shallow gameplay.

Velcrozombie-Sorry but I don't agree, I understood the movie 2001 just fine, I didn't like it because it simply did not appeal to me, just cause I don't like dosen't necessarily mean I haven't "grown" as a person, I know it's hard for some people to grasp that there are other people who just plain don't like "2001".  I believe taste dosen't always evolve that much for every person, my tastes aren't really "malleable", there are very few films i've changed my opinion on for as long i've been watching films.

[darkrage61]

Steer-Just cause a game has violence does NOT I repeat does NOT automatically mean it's targeting the "lowest common denominator" I am so tired of that annoying sterotype.

Also for you own sake, PLEASE don't talk about feminist or minority representations, because you are obviously completely ignorant when it comes to that subject, people ARE represented by gaming whether you want to admit it or not, some games do have depth.

Also this whole "you have a backstory when you die" thing dosen't make a lick of sense.

Also i'm not a Dark Souls fan, i'm not saying all games have to hold your hand, but to me there's a big difference between reasonably challenging and just plain insane, and Dark Souls is just too insane for my taste, you have to constantly use a guide just to figure out what you're even supposed to do, and that's just not my idea of fun.

 

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=darkrage6]

1. Steer-Just cause a game has violence does NOT I repeat does NOT automatically mean it's targeting the "lowest common denominator" I am so tired of that annoying sterotype.

2. Also for you own sake, PLEASE don't talk about feminist or minority representations, because you are obviously completely ignorant when it comes to that subject, people ARE represented by gaming whether you want to admit it or not, some games do have depth.

 Also this whole "you have a backstory when you die" thing dosen't make a lick of sense.

Also i'm not a Dark Souls fan, i'm not saying all games have to hold your hand, but to me there's a big difference between reasonably challenging and just plain insane, and Dark Souls is just too insane for my taste, you have to constantly use a guide just to figure out what you're even supposed to do, and that's just not my idea of fun.

 

[/QUOTE]

1. Where is the variety in you AAA game cinema? No other medium has this absolute dearth of variety.

2. No, not really. Look at Metroid 1. For NES. Famous exp - at the end - it is revealed your character was a woman, up until that point it was assumed to be a man or a robot? What difference did it make? At most, it was a game maker trolling his likely young male audience. That's fine - but what did it change? Nothing, the is no depth there. What other medium could you change who the main character was after the fact and be left with no relevance with what you just completed? You cannot have a plot twist when there is no plot. You cannot have representation without a full fledged character. In any game, all you has is an avatar or an archetype.

Link is an archetype, he has zero personality and no meaningful back story. Every Link is apparently a different Link, but other than art styles they are totally interchangeable, from a narrative stand point.

The Story Mode of the Wii Smash Bros game - what an incoherent mess. A bunch of archetypes got thrown together into a generic mish mash of their 'home' worlds and levels, and the story is a total disaster, devoid of any plot, moral, or point. It is literally Sakurai pulling plush dolls off of the shelf and throwing himself a tea party with them.

That disaster is inevitable result of pulling decades worth of game history and trying to draw a narrative out of it.  There is nothing to draw from, the characters and worlds are paper thin. They relate to their own world, not to each other, and not to our world. It is a sticker book narrative, draw your own caption bubbles. It is a waste of time and energy.

And the next Smash Bros is retreating form this disaster, it will have no story mode. It will be a fighting game, which is all it ever was and all it can ever hope to be.

[velcrozombie1]

@darkrage6

I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about 2001 (I still haven't
seen it, despite how much I like Stanley Kubrick, although I do own it); I
could be talking about any piece of art, really (not to mention food or other tastes).
I also wasn't trying to say that you will ALWAYS come to like something through
time and/or repetition; I'm just saying that it does happen with some things.
I mean, wasn't there a food that you didn't like as a kid that you learned to enjoy
as an adult? I wouldn't even eat a tomato until I was 11, and now a sandwich
feels naked without one.

You tend to come across as being very defensive. A lot of your posts feel like you're
internally saying "You won't change MY mind!", as if your point-of-view can't coexist
with that of someone else. I'm not trying to be mean, but that's how it feels to read
your responses sometimes.

[darkrage61]

Sterr-There's PLENTY of variety in games, and you're wrong, other mediums do have a dearth of variety, have you looked at Hollywood movies lately?

Giving a game series a back story does not automatically mean it will be a "disaster" at all, and Metroid was not a case of the creator "trolling" the audience, at the time it was a genuinely surprising plot twist that nobody saw coming.  Haven't played the new Smash Bros. so I can't comment much on the story mode there, but it dosen't sound that bad.

Velcrozombie- I can't really think of any food I hated as a kid that I like now, when I don't like something, it's extremely rare for me to change my mind about it, I lke tomatoes just fine, but I wouldn't touch Asparagus with a ten foot pole, it just tastes nasty to me. 

I'm not trying to be "defensive" or anything like that, it's just that in the past some people have reacted weird to me when I tell them that I don't like some so-called "classic" film(not talking about you guys, there's another movie forum I frequent), and they basically say i'm crazy for not liking the film, and that gets very tiresome. It just feels like there are some films like 2001 that are unacceptable to many people to dislike. Seems like whenever I say that I always get a response like "oh you just didn't understand the film" and I say "No I understood it just fine, it just wasn't my thing".  When it comes to films, i'd rather spend my time watching a film I haven't seen that looks interesting to me, rather then one i've already seen that I didn't like.

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=darkrage6]I prefer to do my own thinking when it comes to films, people say that 2001 has to be seen multiple times in order to enjoy it, for me a truly good film is one you can enjoy the first time you see it.[/QUOTE]

2001 has to be seen multiple times to fully understand it.  It doesn't have to be seen multiple times to enjoy it.

[scotland171]

Who threw the magic beans on this thread. Leave for a day, and its huge.  Great posts everyone!

SegaT – thanks for the nice thread.  First, I think your paragraph on video game violence merits in its own thread.  

The assertion of your thread here is that video games are a different story telling medium because they must contain gameplay, that they are inferior for storytelling in that attempts to tell a story intrude on gameplay, and that gameplay is the central point of a video game.

That gameplay is the point of a video game is obviously important to you. Yet what constitutes gameplay is incredibly varied. Gameplay in a Mario game is unlike that in Archon or Shadowgate or Brain Games or My Spanish Coach.  Perhaps what is most important is how interactive a game is (or its not a game), and that its fun. If fun for me is staring at a sliding block puzzle for 10 minutes or working on how to pronounce hello in Russian, then that’s gameplay.

I also think while video games do contain gameplay, they are not the only media that does so, e.g., table top role playing or Steve Jackson game books. How about seeing Rocky Horror in the theater, or taking training that uses role playing to enhance business skills. Even a traditional game like chess can be a storytelling media. Every game is a little story. That might seem boring, so wouldn’t you rate chess as a storytelling media beneath video games?

You already wrote that there are arcade games with atmosphere you enjoy, and what is atmosphere but a setting for a story.  If you enjoy “Why is that moon buggy jumping craters and being shot at?” then why would the radio saying “hurrah up with those medical supplies” suddenly be an epic fail. It does not impede the gameplay, but instead begins a story of a heroic rescue. What if instead the radio said “Hurrah up with those explosives the colonists are putting up a fight”.  Different story now, maybe not so heroic.  Is Star Wars Arcade a failure because it has a background story already, or does it fail the first time a character talks to “Luke” in the cockpit.  That does not inhibit my admittedly awesome record setting gameplay in that rail shooter.

We might just be a world of Your Mileage May Vary. When Dragon’s Lair first came out in 1983, it certainly was a shift toward storytelling (and stunning graphics, and a sexy princess), at the expense of gameplay. Its still a celebrated game, but its shortcomings are understood as well. Or what about basic video games like interactive fiction, e.g., Zork? Or just an exploration game like Myst? Or a children’s game to help Bob the Builder fix the school?  Video games are so varied that there a blanket statement that its an inferior storytelling medium needs more support.

So, could you shed some more light on why video games are inherently inferior, maybe with some well known games as examples?

[darkrage61]

I understood 2001 just fine the first time I saw it.

[scotland171]

Certainly some story telling media are linked to times and places.  Most silent films are from the 1920s for instance, or few are the country ballad singers in Boston. Yet, show a person who says they don't like silent movies a Roadrunner or Pink Panther cartoon, and they like it.  Play American Pie to that Bostonian, and see if they know the lyrics by heart.  It takes a bit of effort, I think, and finding what stories told in that media might work for you.

Video games are getting to be middle aged, and cover a wide range of gameplay.  If someone said "I don't like video games" you would probably shrug it off as not understanding the diversity of what video gaming is.  Same thing with most other media.  A person who says that they don't like classic literature, but loves action adventure stories would probably enjoy The Three Musketeers or Captains Courageous if they gave it some effort. 

Velcrozombie makes a good point on movie actors.  You see Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and its Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, not Wolverine.  In a video game, there is a better chance of believing that its the comic book Wolverine (but still probably not like going to the original comic book source).  He also makes good points on games like Gone Home and Minecraft.

For Darkrage6, you wrote your tastes are not malleable.   Haven't you ever gone back and reread or replayed or rewatched anything and come away with a different impression?  Do you still like or dislike precisely the kind of things you did 5 or 10 years ago, and like or dislike them for precisely the same reasons?  The question is rhetorical, by the way, so you don't need to answer.  

[darkrage61]

Usually when I rewatch a film, my opinion largely remains the same. There aren't too many films i've disliked upon a rewatch or ones that I liked more upon a rewatch, I generally spend more time seeking out new films then rewatching old ones anyways.