The Vanishing of Ethan Carter - ludonarrative dissonance begone

[LundB]

'Videogame' is a poor media to tell stories.

Am I seriously reading this on a forum devoted to RPG games?

Yes. Where the fuck are you going with this train of logic? If there is a forum devoted to chess games, does that mean chess is a good media for telling stories?

I think it's pretty clear he's asking because he considers storytelling the most important aspect of an RPG, and wonders why someone would enjoy RPGs if videogames are such a bad medium for storytelling.

Now, what you make of that is up to you.
mondblutian vs. storyfag war incoming

 

[Broseph]

Mondblut is most displeased.

 

[Mangoose]

'Videogame' is a poor media to tell stories.

Am I seriously reading this on a forum devoted to RPG games?

Yes. Where the fuck are you going with this train of logic? If there is a forum devoted to chess games, does that mean chess is a good media for telling stories?

I think it's pretty clear he's asking because he considers storytelling the most important aspect of an RPG, and wonders why someone would enjoy RPGs if videogames are a bad medium for storytelling.

Now, what you make of that is up to you.

Oh okay.

RPGs are the only main genre which let you take a mostly persistent character or small party and let you strategically customize and develop it in order to deal with escalating tactical challenges (both combat and non-combat challenges).

Don't need a story for that. Though incidentally, with open-ended gameplay, the consequences of gameplay usually generate an implicit story of their own.

And, no, strategy/tactical games are not the same thing, as usually the units are expendable and/or replaceable.

 

[Lancehead]

What is he supposed to say? The general idea of "ludonarrative dissonance" isn't a bad one. Do you think he will admit that lifting "Dear Esther" into the gaming olymp is pretentious bullshit to stir up discussion?

Crap, I don't know how to quote with the nick attached. Anyway, this quote is an example of a clusterfuck of misunderstandings that has poisoned this thread. First, I am not a big fan of Dear Esther as game. Quote from the article: "I'm not a big fan of Dear Esther as a game". Second, I do call it an extremely important game, though. TO ME. Quote: "[...] to me, that's one of the most important games in the history of gaming". Why can't I consider this game important to me? Is there like an official list of "Games Allowed to be Mentioned as Inspirations" that I am not aware of?

Why exactly do you consider Dear Esther one of the most important games in history in the context of addressing the issue of ludonarrative dissonance? I don't actually see any reason given in that Eurogamer article beyond saying how it's very outside the usual spectrum of gaming, which doesn't explain its importance in the given context.

 

[RK47]

Perhaps when a game is just delivered with a box with shit inside it, it will break new grounds in artistic sense, much like the Book about What Men Knows about Women that features a blank book.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Sophisticated mechanics are still the most important part of computer games.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

And, no, strategy/tactical games are not the same thing, as usually the units are expendable and/or replaceable.

And yet most of the Codex favorites have rather simplistic combat, or are not really combat-focused in the first place (Fallout, Torment, Arcanum).

I can't help but think that there's very little a full-fledged strategy game wouldn't do better in terms of offering a similar, yet more complex experience. And yeah, I am a storyfag, I guess.

 

[Mangoose]

And, no, strategy/tactical games are not the same thing, as usually the units are expendable and/or replaceable.

And yet most of the Codex favorites have rather simplistic combat, or are not really combat-focused in the first place (Fallout, Torment, Arcanum).
I can't help but think that there's very little a full-fledged strategy better wouldn't do better in terms of offering a similar, yet more complex experience. And yeah, I am a storyfag, I guess.

escalating tactical challenges (both combat and non-combat challenges)

I think there's a difference between interfacing with story via gameplay (through dialogue, skill checks, stat checks, etc.).

And just reading/watching a story being presented to you via cutscenes where you have negligible to minor control.

The former treats the story as gameplay. The latter is storyfaggotry.

 

[Turjan]

What is he supposed to say? The general idea of "ludonarrative dissonance" isn't a bad one. Do you think he will admit that lifting "Dear Esther" into the gaming olymp is pretentious bullshit to stir up discussion?

Crap, I don't know how to quote with the nick attached. Anyway, this quote is an example of a clusterfuck of misunderstandings that has poisoned this thread. First, I am not a big fan of Dear Esther as game. Quote from the article: "I'm not a big fan of Dear Esther as a game". Second, I do call it an extremely important game, though. TO ME. Quote: "[...] to me, that's one of the most important games in the history of gaming". Why can't I consider this game important to me? Is there like an official list of "Games Allowed to be Mentioned as Inspirations" that I am not aware of?

That was my quote. To try and drag this on a subjective level doesn't work, sorry. You said: "[...] to me, that's one of the most important games in the history of gaming". The "history of gaming" is a general concept, something you find on Wikipdedia, not a personal one. Only your specific placement of the game there is subjective. You put it on a pedestal. That's what I pointed out.

Perhaps you meant something different, like your own gaming history, but that's not what you said.

 

[Turjan]

'Videogame' is a poor media to tell stories.

Am I seriously reading this on a forum devoted to RPG games?

Yes, you are. An excellent story usually makes for bad RPGs, as it's more or less a railroad to get the story across. A good RPG has more or less an incidental story that's written by the actions of the "hero(es)", but this is often enough mediocre at best. Planescape Torment is revered for its story, not for its gameplay. Fallout 1 is cherished for its gameplay, not for its story. It's most of the time a trade-off.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

And, no, strategy/tactical games are not the same thing, as usually the units are expendable and/or replaceable.

And yet most of the Codex favorites have rather simplistic combat, or are not really combat-focused in the first place (Fallout, Torment, Arcanum).
I can't help but think that there's very little a full-fledged strategy better wouldn't do better in terms of offering a similar, yet more complex experience. And yeah, I am a storyfag, I guess.

escalating tactical challenges (both combat and non-combat challenges)

I think there's a difference between interfacing with story via gameplay (through dialogue, skill checks, stat checks, etc.).

And just reading/watching a story being presented to you via cutscenes where you have negligible to minor control.

The former treats the story as gameplay. The latter is storyfaggotry.

There is, but I'm unsure whether it'd be appropriate to refer to non-combat skills as inherently 'tactical'. If they do not influence combat in some manner, doesn't calling them 'tactical' stretch the nature of the word?

More precisely, what is the purpose of grouping skill sets as combat and non-combat, when tactical or strategic elements are inherently defined by micromanagement, unit attributes, resource management, etc., and not passive skill checks like 'Speech' or 'Science'?

 

[Mangoose]

There is, but I'm unsure whether it'd be appropriate to refer to non-combat skills as inherently 'tactical'. If they do not influence combat in some manner, doesn't calling them 'tactical' stretch the nature of the word?

More precisely, what is the purpose of grouping skill sets as combat and non-combat, when tactical or strategic elements are inherently defined by micromanagement, unit attributes, resource management, etc., and not passive skill checks like 'Speech' or 'Science'?

Life is a series of tactical and strategic decisions. Tactics and strategy don't just apply to combat.

 

[skyhawk02]

Since most people in this thread are apparently unable to read, let me point out that Adrian Chmielarz did not say that the game would have qte's, or that it would be a movie. In fact, considering that he and Thomas Grip think so alike when it comes to gaming, you can be pretty sure that the game will not have cutscenes. What he is trying to do is make a game where the player plays the story, instead of watches it. If you actually disagree with him on that, and you would prefer games that use cutscenes rather than gameplay to tell the story, then you are an idiot.

 

[MetalCraze]

I come to the thread that supposedly should make fun of hipsters... and yet here is some Tommy Wiseau talking some stupid deep shit about what tactics really is

/Codex

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

But how's that pertinent to the combatfag stance? If combat-oriented, strategically-satisfying gameplay is the most desirable thing in a roleplaying game, I only see a minimal need for passive non-combat skill checks because they do not provide any sort of challenge to be 'won'. If the purpose is combat, most prerequisites can already be fulfilled by focusing on, you know, combat skills.

I come to the thread that supposedly should make fun of hipsters... and yet here is some Tommy Wiseau talking some stupid deep shit about what tactics really is

A mixture of both?

 

[Mangoose]

But how's that pertinent to the combatfag stance?

What combatfag stance?

If combat-oriented, strategically-satisfying gameplay is the most desirable thing in a roleplaying game

Who said this?

I only see a minimal need for passive non-combat skill checks because they do not provide any sort of challenge to be 'won'.

A skill check is a challenge to be won.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Since most people in this thread are apparently unable to read, let me point out that Adrian Chmielarz did not say that the game would have qte's, or that it would be a movie. In fact, considering that he and Thomas Grip think so alike when it comes to gaming, you can be pretty sure that the game will not have cutscenes. What he is trying to do is make a game where the player plays the story, instead of watches it. If you actually disagree with him on that, and you would prefer games that use cutscenes rather than gameplay to tell the story, then you are an idiot.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

What combatfag stance?

The one that puts combat above all else.

Who said this?

I'd have thought it an obvious deduction to make, given the chess vs. roleplaying games comparison.

A skill check is a challenge to be won.

It's barely a challenge - a roleplaying game that focuses too much on passive (or non-combat) skill checks to make players receive the best outcome would run the risk of not being a challenge at all.

 

[Mangoose]

The one that puts combat above all else.

RPGs are the only main genre which let you take a mostly persistent character or small party and let you strategically customize and develop it in order to deal with escalating tactical challenges (both combat and non-combat challenges).

I'd have thought it an obvious deduction to make, given the chess vs. roleplaying games comparison.

You deduced wrong. Especially given that chess teaches you many many many lessons about life,

It's barely a challenge - a roleplaying game that focuses too much on passive (or non-combat) skill checks to make players receive the best outcome would run the risk of not being a challenge at all.

That depends on implementation.

And the plethora of skill checks is why people like Arcanum, Fallout, and Planescape.


Edit:
Hey Dungeon Masters. Apparently, if you rely too much on skill checks there is no challenge in your campaign. You must have combat otherwise your players will win.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Obviously, losing most of the time is determined through combat interaction in a CRPG. It's not like I'm arguing against skill checks, though I may think they have a different purpose outside combat.

 

[The Glitterdust Golem]

'Videogame' is a poor media to tell stories.

Am I seriously reading this on a forum devoted to RPG games?

Videogames are a poor media to tell a story, but they're a fantastic way to create one between designer and player. RPGs are the epitome of this, and to see people think that they're instead the best genre to suffocate and stifle a player's choices rather than provide for them is painful. Pitiful, even (Not saying this is you, mind, I haven't checked - simply my view on Bioware/Bethesda/MostanyRPGtoday). A player should be experiencing the creation of a story through the skills, attributes and general abilities of their character(s) in reaction to the framework set out by a designer, not be watching them squandered, instead, to a designer deciding: "No, you cannot lockpick this door. It's an important, plot central door. No using that door bashing, either. Oh, and you can't scale the wall. No. Just go and find the special key. GO, THE PLOT DEMANDS IT.". If a player can sequence break because of their skills, let them!

Important to keep that distinction, I think. It's less about telling in this medium, and more about crafting. Not only less QTE sequences and cutscenes, plz, but also less 'Essential NPCs' and the aforementioned plot doors / quest item bollocks. A player that shoots every NPC in the head would have as much of their own tale to tell about the game as someone agonising over reading every piece of text, and that's how games should work!

 

[villain of the story]

This is exactly why creators rarely talk on forums, and this is exactly why I have been warned against engaging.

Which is what? Finding the courage to step out of your comfort zone of a "creator" by exposing yourself to new perspectives? Aww

No need to get defensive. I realise all that you're saying. I was trying to give you a perspective on why someone who at some point thought that he'd seen all there is to gaming is not getting such brilliant reception here. That you're discovering good stuff is good, obviously, but that stuff ain't news to most of us so we raise an eyebrow when you point such a poor example as a reference point with such big words, regardless of its validity to you which I don't doubt. A poor reference point is still a poor reference point and makes one question where the hell you have been or what the hell you have been doing and how you intend to make something new out of this new transformation seemingly triggered by such a poor reference point just now. Otherwise, I doubt anyone got any issues with you or with what you're doing. Best of luck. Still looking forward to Ethan Carter.

 

[Juggie]

The one that puts combat above all else.

It's barely a challenge - a roleplaying game that focuses too much on passive (or non-combat) skill checks to make players receive the best outcome would run the risk of not being a challenge at all.

That depends on implementation.

And the plethora of skill checks is why people like Arcanum, Fallout, and Planescape.

I love skills in game, but they need to be well implemented. And I don't consider skills that are only checked when choosing certain dialog options as well implemented skills. Every skill should have a complex enough mechanic attached to it and the mechanic should interact with other game mechanics. For me speech skill in Fallout is way too simplistic. It only checks if your skill is over certain bar and this decides whether you get extra options in dialog (or rather whether choosing certain options has positive or negative outcome). Same goes for most non-combat skills in Fallout. Whenever I replay Fallouts (the old ones), I know how many points I need for many skill checks so I just build my character according to it. There's no real mechanic, it's just a check with binary outcome and if you have enough points you get extra rewards. This system may fool a first time player but for someone replaying it it's just too barebones and it's hard to resist metagaming it.

So yea, it's about implementation, but I'm yet to see a good implementation of dialog related skills.

Videogames are a poor media to tell a story, but they're a fantastic way to create one between designer and player. RPGs are the epitome of this, and to see people think that they're instead the best genre to suffocate and stifle a player's choices rather than provide for them is painful. Pitiful, even (Not saying this is you, mind, I haven't checked - simply my view on Bioware/Bethesda/MostanyRPGtoday). A player should be experiencing the creation of a story through the skills, attributes and general abilities of their character(s) in reaction to the framework set out by a designer, not be watching them squandered, instead, to a designer deciding: "No, you cannot lockpick this door. It's an important, plot central door. No using that door bashing, either. Oh, and you can't scale the wall. No. Just go and find the special key. GO, THE PLOT DEMANDS IT.". If a player can sequence break because of their skills, let them!

Important to keep that distinction, I think. It's less about telling in this medium, and more about crafting. Not only less QTE sequences and cutscenes, plz, but also less 'Essential NPCs' and the aforementioned plot doors / quest item bollocks. A player that shoots every NPC in the head would have as much of their own tale to tell about the game as someone agonising over reading every piece of text, and that's how games should work!

I think that this post expressed what storytelling should be about in games very well.

 

[villain of the story]

MORE CHMIELARZ: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Adri..._NextGeneration_Will_Change_Games_Forever.php

Warning: includes flagrant abuse of the word "metaphor".

I have the suspicion that he doesn't understand what metaphor means. An abstract representation is not a metaphor, Chmielarz-dude son. Anyone willing to bet that he just found out about the word in a dictionary?

Go for the pixel art (e.g. Kentucky Route Zero).

Kentucky Route Zero is pixel art now? What's next, Tomb Raider is isometric? Fucking LOL

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Since most people in this thread are apparently unable to read, let me point out that Adrian Chmielarz did not say that the game would have qte's, or that it would be a movie. In fact, considering that he and Thomas Grip think so alike when it comes to gaming, you can be pretty sure that the game will not have cutscenes. What he is trying to do is make a game where the player plays the story, instead of watches it. If you actually disagree with him on that, and you would prefer games that use cutscenes rather than gameplay to tell the story, then you are an idiot.

It doesn't help much to be able to read, if one cannot comprehend simple concepts, as you clearly demonstrate, my brother. Dear Esther doesn't have cutscenes, but it's still less interactive than the likes of Heavy Rain. HL2 doesn't have "cutscenes" either, instead it has segments when you're locked in a room with a bunch of characters talking and can't do anything till they're done. Not taking control away from the player is just one step, the game can still be painfully linear and restrictive without doing it.

There is good reason to be concerned, I believe, since even in his posts here, Chmielarz extolls the virtues of To The Moon, which is a good story, but a very bad game. It's still the same design principle of conceiving a linear narrative (like a movie or book), and then trying to fit that pesky gameplay in somewhere. The player can walk around the world and click on items to initiate scripted events? THE MEDIUM HAS BEEN ADVANCED SO MUCH, MOVE OVER CITIZEN KANE TIME FOR GODFATHER.