Starfight VI was pretty good. It's an older game but definitely worth a playthrough. Same goes for Beneath a Steel Sky.Hm... I'll have to see if the DL for that Starflight is blocked at school. Now to google Steel Sky.
Okay, in your various explorations of the internet, have you guys found any games (preferably free) that have a really good and involving storyline? I need to play somehting other than "go blow that up".
Ewwww. Internet specific?
My brother plays a flash game on Armorgames.com called "Sonny" and its sequel, "Sonny 2"
He says they're good, but I haven't played.
It's a little obscure to find sometimes:Starfight VI was pretty good. It's an older game but definitely worth a playthrough. Same goes for Beneath a Steel Sky.Hm... I'll have to see if the DL for that Starflight is blocked at school. Now to google Steel Sky.
5 Days a Stranger; Seven Days a Skeptic: Plenty of story, but don't play the other games in the series (as they suck).I beg to differ. Sure, the other two games are a tad bit different from the first two ones, but they're still far from sucking.
Arcane is a particular favorite of mine. It's a point-and-click adventure that uses a lot of Lovecraftian material. Here's (http://www.gamershood.com/flashgames/137) the first episode (of four) of the first season; the second season can still be found on Warner's site (http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/arcane/home.jsp?fromtout=home_menu_games_item1). Steppenwolf (http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/steppenwolf/home.jsp) is also rather enjoyable.
5 Days a Stranger; Seven Days a Skeptic: Plenty of story, but don't play the other games in the series (as they suck).I beg to differ. Sure, the other two games are a tad bit different from the first two ones, but they're still far from sucking.
Cave Story: PLAY THIS NOW!
www.wesnoth.org is also awesome.
Not only a great game with good support and constant updates, some campaigns are involving as well.
It's not free, but there's a big demo. About a third of the campaign in there, from memory.
Ye gods, how can I have never heard of this!?
<3
As an interactive medium games are capable of telling stories in ways that linear narratives like that of film and novels are incapable of expressing.
An interactive medium that 'tells' stories is entirely missing the point. Telling is one directional. Therefore, storytelling in a game setting is robbing the game of the one thing that differentiates it from other types of media - interactivity.You're using a very literal definition of storytelling here. That's not what I meant, and you know it. I'm referring to any method with which an author conveys a story to an audience.
The game was going to have a branching point there and allow you to work for UNATCO in Hong Kong, but Ion Storm dropped that idea later in development. Even though the game is quite long, they actually left out quite a few things that were originally planned.
An interactive medium that 'tells' stories is entirely missing the point. Telling is one directional. Therefore, storytelling in a game setting is robbing the game of the one thing that differentiates it from other types of media - interactivity.You're using a very literal definition of storytelling here. That's not what I meant, and you know it. I'm referring to any method with which an author conveys a story to an audience.
Every truly good game story is more than just a bunch of cutscenes, no matter how well they're made or how good the writing is. For it to have real weight the story and themes have to be a part of the gameplay - the player's actions throughout the experience must reflect what the game is about or all those awesome cutscenes become nothing more than narrative window-dressing. Strip the cutscenes out of Gears of War or Halo and there's nothing there that tells a story. The same can't be said for games like Torment, Far Cry 2 or Immortal Defense.
It's not to say you can't have really good window-dressing. Some of the better Final Fantasies can attest to that, and it could be argued also our beloved Freespace. But it's like a film constructed entirely of long shots - it could still be a fantastic story, but it's essentially a radio play with a visual gimmick. It would very probably be more at home in a different medium.
To that end I think your exploration of interactivity is a dead end. Pointing out the fact that the player can't shape the story is missing the point just as much as any game that strictly 'tells' a story. I might be opening a can of worms by mentioning the A word here, but art is all about intent. Of course the interactivity is limited. Ignoring the technical limitations, any story must have constraints or it will become flailing, unfocused and ultimately meaningless. You rightly point out that no story - at least not the sort we're talking about - can exist in such a game. It's a whole other discussion about emergent narrative which, while fascinating, I don't think is relevant here.
. Ignoring the technical limitations, any story must have constraints or it will become flailing, unfocused and ultimately meaningless.
Already answered. The post directly above this one deals specifically with the so-called 'branching' stories, and the actual nature of the player's interaction.That's what I was responding to. I'm saying your discussion of the level of player interaction misunderstands the medium.
This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point. The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction. Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.I can't agree. A good story in a game is completely unlike a story told in the other mediums - it can hardly be emulating something if it's doing it in a way they're incapable of. I agree with you completely in regard to the average game story, which is basically just a short movie cut up and slotted into the game at various points, but you've completely ignored everything I said about the player actions reflecting the story. None of the other mediums can create that level of audience involvement. It's an entirely different way to express a story.
You want to stress thatI'm advocating neither. A is a lazy form of gaming storytelling which fails to take advantage of the medium. On that me and phatosealpha agree - simply telling a story in a game isn't enough. B takes full advantage of the medium but (in the case of things like Eve or The Sims) has no tangible direction and therefore, despite certainly having its own merits, isn't the sort of thing I'm talking about. There's very good arguments to be made that B can be art, and I'm inclined to agree. But I don't agree with phatosealpha that anything which limits such interactivity for the sake of delivering a directed experience is automatically a misuse of the medium.
possibility A) telling a good story (for example Beyond Good & Evil) with Gameplay between the cutscenes (maybe even non-linear elements)
and
possibility B) actually letting the player "make" the story, not experiencing (Sims?)
This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point. The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction. Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.
What I'm talking about is C: weaving the story into the gameplay. Perhaps it has cutscenes, perhaps it doesn't, but the game and the story must be inseparable. With the actions the player takes throughout the course of the game - actions which are to varying extents directed by the situations the player is placed in and the tools he's given to deal with them - he knowingly or not contributes to the game's overriding themes.
A game without a story is a flash-based webbrowser shootemup. A game that lets you do anything is Spore, which does exactly that - lets the player build his own storyline. But you are simply... a creature; you aren't Master Chief, the guy who jumped out of a ship in orbit with a nuke, blew up an alien spaceship with it and then landed on another ship a good 10 thousand miles above the earth.
This is why using gaming as a storytelling medium is ultimately missing the point. The primary advantage of gaming is that it lacks those constraints of direction. Trying to turn gaming into a storytelling medium akin to movies or books - both of which are already completely constrained - it simply robbing the medium of it's main advantage by putting constraints into place for the sake of emulating another medium.
Anyway, here's the thing - I don't believe that a game with unlimited freedom is innately bland. I view that as a technical problem, not a reasonable statement on the nature of the game itself. A good human DM, for instance, is quite capable of handling extraordinarily chaotic players while still making a Dramatic experience.
Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction. And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting. Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?
Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction. And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting. Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?But with the obvious exception of yourself, do you really think there are that many people out there who even want what you're proposing? I know that I myself am in the exact opposite camp. As incomprehensible as it might seem to you, I generally prefer my games to be as linear as possible, and I've never had any real interest in seeking out and playing more sandbox-esque titles. Why, you might ask? Because I play games for the same reason that I read novels or watch movies: I want to be presented with a series of events leading to some conclusion. Amongst those other media, games offer the unique experience of allowing me, through my viewpoint as the player, to directly experience and interact with that story. I'm the one being shot at by aliens, slaughtering zombies, flying a spaceship, or swinging a sword, and it's up to me to ensure that everything turns out right in the end. To me, a well-crafted game can generate those sensations in even the most rigidly linear title, and it's that sort of game that I value most highly.
Thing is, it's not that I see slow progress in that direction, or even no progress - I see no one even trying to move in that direction. And in Bioware's case, they could even be taken as moving backward with technology, instead of forward - largely cause of Voice acting. Can you really say Mass Effect is any less constrained then Baldur's gate?But with the obvious exception of yourself, do you really think there are that many people out there who even want what you're proposing? I know that I myself am in the exact opposite camp. As incomprehensible as it might seem to you, I generally prefer my games to be as linear as possible, and I've never had any real interest in seeking out and playing more sandbox-esque titles. Why, you might ask? Because I play games for the same reason that I read novels or watch movies: I want to be presented with a series of events leading to some conclusion. Amongst those other media, games offer the unique experience of allowing me, through my viewpoint as the player, to directly experience and interact with that story. I'm the one being shot at by aliens, slaughtering zombies, flying a spaceship, or swinging a sword, and it's up to me to ensure that everything turns out right in the end. To me, a well-crafted game can generate those sensations in even the most rigidly linear title, and it's that sort of game that I value most highly.
It's like the oft-quoted Yahtzee stated during his recent review of the PS3 title Little Big Planet. I have no interest in "making" my own gameplay, because in my mind, that's exactly what I'm paying the developers to do. They are the ones who are (theoretically, anyway) masters of game design, interactive storytelling, and the like. I want to directly experience their own expertise and craftsmanship, not rely on my own nonexistent imagination or the whims of some procedural generator.
(And yes, I always loathed those "choose-your-own-adventure" sorts of things, too. :p)
However, if the "media is the message", then many games have something wrong going on. IMO, attempts like Mass Effect are only injuring the media, not because of having a linear (mostly) storyline, but because at some point or another, interactivity (the media's strenght) is taken away from us: during dialogues, those cutscenes, etc. Games like Halo suffer the same problem, each time you finish a level or whatever there we go again, another cutscene... christ, I'll go to the big screen if I want to watch movies, thanks.
Yeah sure, my character, the Master Chief, jumped from a ship to the other in plain space, what a hero!!... only problem is it wasn't ME jumping of that ship. Which brings me to the next point.
Nowadays the trend is complaining that developers can't do much to increase content because of production costs... I'd say up yours to that.
The problem is most developers nowadays want to relegate all their problems to the programming and art departments, instead of trying to come with intelligent, elegant solutions themselves.
Make no mistake, the gaming media, except on the technological side, has been regressing in the last decade.
First Person View doesn't always fit with the scene the devs had in mind. Taking control of the camera away from the player for a tad, in order to create a better atmosphere or convey something better, if fully justified IMHO.
As long as the character doesn't do anything retarded during that cutscene (something you'd never do), as long as what happens is an expected and credible outcome of your action, it's all OK.
And example would be coming to the edge of the ship and jumping - and only THEN does the game cut, showing the massive jump from a cool angle.
I assume you're talking from your massive experience in making big gaming titles? You think making a game is easy? It's everything BUT that.No, I'm talking from my experience in design in general, my studies in both game design, game theory, production experience in similar projects (and no I'm not talking of mods) that employ design, programming and art skills just like games.
Take for example Bioware's Dragon Age. They are actually making what you are saying here - fractal, multiple starting points, multiple endings, completely different chapters depending on your race/class, different quests and NPC's, etc...
However, it takes so much time they had to cut some content and ask for a 5 month delay. So now DA has 6 origins (2 have been confirmed as cut for various reasons), 1 party NPC confirmed cut and probably a few tidbits more. It will still end up being a MASSIVE game, but this just goes to show you how difficult such a thing is.
If you ever had experience with NWN or NWN2 modules, even making such mods took a hulluvalot of time and effort, and they were very linerar and short.
I assume you're talking from your massive experience in making big gaming titles? You think making a game is easy? It's everything BUT that.
I disagree. Taking away the interactivity of the game is never justified IMO.
Say in the example of the Master Chief's jump. I really don't remember the full details of that particular scene, but I do remember the chief jumps, camera changes n times, he lands with a noise and Sarge (camera cuts to the inside of the ship) makes a comment.
Why not the player jumps, the LZ is looking bigger, and bigger, and bigger... he lands with a noise, he hears sarge's comment via radio (or whatever they use there)? During the player he obviously cannot manipulate his movement, because he is on freefall, but he can still look around.
Wouldn't that convey the huge proportions of the jump? I believe so. Wouldn't that be better design? Absolutely
Mirror's edge does such things too. [/quote{
And both things are, of course, fully subjective.
Which is why game design is such a difficult process in the first place. It also differs from game type to game type.
If the game is not first person, taking away camera control seems less of an issue.
As a general rule I would avoid taking control from the player, but there are instances where it might be for the better, and for more reasons than just pure asthetics.Say for instance, perhaps Mass Effect could've had more actual game content if the Designers didn't have the "brilliant" idea of making movies out of the dialogues.
The resources they wasted there could've been used to script more dialogue trees, quests, or areas.
Which most people think WAS a brilliant idea, since such dialogue added a lot to the atmosphere and feel.QuoteI'm not following Dragon Age, but I'll hold my breath for them. And anyways, Bioware's promises don't really hold up for me. We'll see how different are 2 playtroughs in DA when it comes out. You know, you also start in different areas depending of race in LotR Online and WoW.
But assuming they are being 100% true on what they say: cutting content happens everywhere, everytime. Delays? Check as well.
But anyways, if in the Fallouts they managed to almost make a fractal narrative, with a budget nowhere near of DA's budget, then Bioware is simply, finally, justifying the money they are given.
Fallout series, as briliant as it is, is old and does not compare well, since new games DEMAND a LOT more resources, which consequently requires a lot more time and $$$. Not to mention that the protagonist in Fallout is pre-set, which makes telling a story and creating content easier.
And both things are, of course, fully subjective.
Which is why game design is such a difficult process in the first place. It also differs from game type to game type.
If the game is not first person, taking away camera control seems less of an issue.
As a general rule I would avoid taking control from the player, but there are instances where it might be for the better, and for more reasons than just pure asthetics.
Which most people think WAS a brilliant idea, since such dialogue added a lot to the atmosphere and feel.
Fallout series, as briliant as it is, is old and does not compare well, since new games DEMAND a LOT more resources, which consequently requires a lot more time and $$$. Not to mention that the protagonist in Fallout is pre-set, which makes telling a story and creating content easier.
Also, what I said isn't subjective. It would be if we were talking about tastes, and I'm not:
On Bungie's jump sequence, it conveys whatever they wanted to convey well. However, that sequence could happen without any kind of estrangement in: a movie, a comic, a video game (via cutscene)
My jump sequence would convey whatever Bungie's sequence conveys. However, it is a sequence that could happen without any kind of estrangement in: a videogame only.
That's not me saying, that's what many great minds said (the media is the message) decades ago... and makes perfect sense. Objective, logical.
But even so, the fact that you didn't justify the other 2 brilliant ideas leads me to think that you found some reason on the point I was trying to make. Assuming that this particular point was a right decision (which, like I said, me and other people disagree), that still makes for 2 other time consuming tasks that didn't allow for actual game content to be done.
On the other hand, newer games have much much bigger budgets and much better tools\tech at their disposal, not to mention bigger production cycles, so it evens out in terms of cash I'd say.
As for DA, from what I've just read in their FaQ mainly:
a and b) They claim they have multiple ways of solving the story and that there will be consequences... from past Bioware's repertoir I'd bet my head that those things are only going to really happen in the main storyline, not the side quests. But that's speculation from my part, so let's give them the benefit of doubt.
c) 3 classes to choose from. Easier to balance the game than in Fallout
d) from the classes they mention, I'm pretty sure you won't see a diplomat or "techie" approach to solving 95% of the game. Less workload.
There are 3 starting races and a total of 6 origins:Why can't I be a dwarven mage or a human commoner?
- Mage Origin (elf or human mage)
- Human Noble (human warrior or rouge)
- Daelish elf (elven rouge or warrior)
- City Elf (elven rogue or warrior)
- Dwarven Commoner (dwarven warrior or rogue)
- Dwarven Noble ((dwarven warrior or rogue)
You'd think that the big game companies would dedicate a team to working on their own reusable network-code and the like, rather than having them build it all from scratch (or buying it) for each game.
There are 3 starting races and a total of 6 origins:Why can't I be a dwarven mage or a human commoner?
- Mage Origin (elf or human mage)
- Human Noble (human warrior or rouge)
- Daelish elf (elven rouge or warrior)
- City Elf (elven rogue or warrior)
- Dwarven Commoner (dwarven warrior or rogue)
- Dwarven Noble ((dwarven warrior or rogue)
Bioware are strict believers in social roles
incidentally if you play a female character you can only be a bar wench