Story in games

UFOs, lost socks, discuss whatever you like here.

Moderators: Master_Kale, TNM Team

AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Story in games

Post by AEmer »

Which is a great example of a game developer using the directing techniques from movies to try and express something within a game...and failing utterly.

It's all due to the more or less tacitly aknowledged fact, that movies are the more important (and higher) artform of our generation.

That incredibly pervasive perspective fucks things up, particularly for gaming, but even books, comic strips and cartoons are lambasted by horrid "movie" adaptations.

And you know, that's the reason for why the guy I linked in the OP said as he did. He's apparently without the capacity to analyze and name the problem, but he can feel and see that there is in fact a problem, so he tries to diagnose it as best he can.

Anyway, I realize a major issue with the various intro's described here as interactive...they're not mandatory upon startup. I mean, I want players to have an option to just get straight into where they left off, or to disable the intro, and it should never be unskippable...but if an intro isn't run on starting the game, it isn't a proper bookend for the game...in which case, it's more like a campaign introduction. Which is ok, it's just not really the same thing: An intro that's launched upon campaign start is supposed to set up the campaign, whereas the mandatory intro on every startup is supposed to set you up for gaming nomatter which point in the game you're currently at.
User avatar
gamer0004
Illuminati
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: Story in games

Post by gamer0004 »

AEmer wrote: It's all due to the more or less tacitly aknowledged fact, that movies are the more important (and higher) artform of our generation.
Important perhaps (though games are at least as important for our generation I think), but nobody considers movies a higher artform than books AFAIK.
(Besides that it's pretty pointless to discuss which form of art is 'higher'. But it's interesting to note your statement as most people I know consider movies in general pretty dumb, even if there are a few gems).
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: Story in games

Post by AEmer »

You're right: Discussing what art form is higher is patently useless. I mean, aside from discussing what "high" even means, almost no matter the definition, it's going to be useless.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't recognize that, and many will agitate in favor of their favorite medium...gamers are as guilty of that as anybody, as I'm sure you know.

What's worth discussing, perhaps, is whether there is a pervasive perspective among a considerable part of the population that film has a special status, and whether working in film is the highest you can climb up the art-industry ladder in terms of professional recognition and respect. It might be worth discussing because it seems you don't feel there is such a perception.

Well, consider the Oscars. They're the biggest awards show out of all the awards shows within arts, and they're considered the most prestigious awards you can get, I believe, second perhaps only to the Nobel price awards, which are known for their non-art prices. The pullitzer is also known and respected...just not as known, or getting as much recognition. And certainly, within litterature, only the NY Times bestsellers list appears to be widely known.

But if that consideration isn't enough, the afterward to Orson Scott Cards "Enders Game" 20th anniversary edition audiobook has something candid to say. Scott Card, in spite of his horrid stance on homosexuality (he's a mormon), is generally a liked and very recognized genre fiction writer - specifically science fiction. He describes his deliberations around the filming of enders game, and in spite being a writer and obviously loving written litterature, he recognized the reason why people would consistently badger him about making a movie.

It wasn't his preference, but he explained their behaviour with this apparent preference for cinema over the written word; that seeing the movie would somehow be the more complete, or more final, version...not necessarily because it would encompass more, it would undoubtedly encompass significantly less, but because it is somehow considered the version with the most potential.

And that's really all the good examples I've got of that perception, but I do think it's there.
Post Reply