Anime Video games are better without stories - Vice article

[v1rus]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/
disgust

 

[Metro]

Setting is far more important to me than story. Example: Gothic 1. There really isn't much of a story and the one that is there is pretty derpy (t3h SLEEPAH!). The setting of the Colony with the opposing camps is the more interesting aspect.

 

[v1rus]

Setting is far more important to me than story. Example: Gothic 1. There really isn't much of a story and the one that is there is pretty derpy (t3h SLEEPAH!). The setting of the Colony with the opposing camps is the more interesting aspect.

Setting is part of the story too. It's not plot, as in, the turn of events, but it definitely falls under story.

In Poetics, Aristotle divided plays into 6 elements, out of which 4 fall under story - plot, characters, dialogues and thoughts. Pretty good and exact, expect he's missing setting - which is natural, since back in his time every play was set in Greek mythology setting.

 

[buru5]

I couldn't get through that entire article. Story is such a vague term when it comes to video games. I would say that excessive reading is detrimental to a video game, even roleplaying games many of which are guilty of this , but I'm tolerable of reading spread out in short bursts across the entire game. This applies to older games moreso than newer games.

Telling story through the environment and setting, with things being inferred instead of flat out told to you is what I usually prefer. Lots of roleplaying games have drawn out monologues from various NPCs that aren't realistic in even a real world scenario, like telling you very small details and hand holding that no reasonable person would know or recite without pauses and "ummms" spread throughout. Maybe I'm too drunk to fully articulate this point, idk, but it breaks immersion for me when one npc has 2 paragraphs worth of information that is told to you without breaks.

Some genres (platformers or puzzle games) can get away with very minimal story, but I think most games need context to be enjoyable and context could very easily be considered story elements. Dig Dug or something being a good example of this. Nothing is really told to you but you infer lots of shit about the PC and enemies.

 

[v1rus]

I couldn't get through that entire article. Story is such a vague term when it comes to video games. I would say that excessive reading is detrimental to a video game, even roleplaying games many of which are guilty of this , but I'm tolerable of reading spread out in short bursts across the entire game. This applies to older games moreso than newer games.

Telling story through the environment and setting, with things being inferred instead of flat out told to you is what I usually prefer. Lots of roleplaying games have drawn out monologues from various NPCs that aren't realistic in even a real world scenario, like telling you very small details and hand holding that no reasonable person would know or recite without pauses and "ummms" spread throughout. Maybe I'm too drunk to fully articulate this point, idk, but it breaks immersion for me when one npc has 2 paragraphs worth of information that is told to you without breaks.

Some genres (platformers or puzzle games) can get away with very minimal story, but I think most games need context to be enjoyable and context could very easily be considered story elements. Dig Dug or something being a good example of this. Nothing is really told to you but you infer lots of shit about the PC and enemies.

Whole article is incredibly vague, and I actually have no idea what the writers points are. Gonna try and read the article again tomorrow, after getting some much needed sleep.

Now, on that whole "telling a story through environment", I absolutely agree, games way too often rely on dialogues, while the oldest writing rule in the book is "show dont tell'. But for the life of me, I cant figure out how the hell that makes story anything less worth in a game, than in a flick, play or comic. Stories should use the mediums advantages as best as they can, and adapt to it - that's the very core of screenwriting.

 

[rezaf]

I think there's a point to be made about whether it's automatically a good idea to add a ton of story.
Old shooters like Doom or Quake had the thinnest veil of a story and otherwise relied purely on moment to moment gameplay to be enjoyable.
In contrast, modern shooters often try to be a cinematic experience, with cutscenes, subplots, various (hopefully) memorable characters and so on.
Having such storyline wrapper can often be appealing, since it gives players a sense of purpose.
But is it neccessary to have that in order to be a good FPS? Of course not. It's just basically a side salad to your steak. Sometimes, it's the other way around and it's a salad with beef strips.
Like cuisine, game design has just developed, and people have learned to make use of various ingredients to spice things up.
And like in cuisine, not everything on the menu of any given restaurant is going to appeal to everyone.
I don't see the need for a sensationalist approach saying "meat is always better without any side dish".

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Funny, I don't think I ever cared one bit about what ANY game journalist thought about how a game should or should not be. To me it's all 100% drivel.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

All storyfags should just go back to comic books and stop polluting the pure genre of actual games forever.

 

[HansDampf]

Boring.
Games aren't movies and can tell different kinds of stories. And they can tell them not only through cutscenes and dialogue but also setting, environment, gameplay, or all of the above.

http://frictionalgames.blogspot.de/2017/05/story-what-is-it-good-for.html

 

[Gerrard]

Aren't these the same people who have been masturbating over walking simulators?

 

[DeepOcean]

Non interactive cutscene abuse need to die and lore dump NPCs need to die, otherwise I'm okay with story.

 

[ore clover]

Maybe he's just on a higher plane of existence than me, but I can't finish this rambling soapbox piece.

On this measure, alas, the best interactive stories are still worse than even middling books and films. That’s a problem to be ignored rather than solved. Games’ obsession with story obscures more ambitious goals anyway.

Ignoring problems sounds like gaming journalism 101.

Games are not a new, interactive medium for stories. Instead, games are the aesthetic form of everyday objects. Of ordinary life. Take a ball and a field: you get soccer. Take property-based wealth and the Depression: you get Monopoly.

Does this actually mean anything? Can anyone interpret this drivel?

Let me try, Ian Bogost. Take a baseball bat and an estranged wife: you get domestic violence! Is that a game too??

 

[newtmonkey]

The problem with these manchildren is they cannot accept things for what they are. Sometimes you just want to play a game of Monopoly with your family/friends. It is purely a dice rolling and negotiation game. Even the people that made that game didn't see it as some simulation of wealth or something.
Sometimes you want to play Might & Magic II and map a world. It's a game. These manchildren cannot understand this because their entire lives have revolved around games, in a totally disfunctional way. Instead of realizing this (and yeah, playing games has been an important part of life for humans FOREVER), they attribute some weird ass meaning to games, which games are not meant to have.

For a normal human being, games are something you do to unwind. You might be extremely passionate about your hobby, but that is what it is. A hobby.

It is extremely weird to me that these game reviewers are so bizarre. You don't see movie critics acting like this. I mean, Roger Ebert fucking loved movies and spent as much time as he could watching them. But he never acted like some weird autistic shut in, incapable of interacting with other people, which is how I imagine 99% of all video game reviewers.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Video games are better without LEFTIST GAME JOURNOS

 

[decaf]

Whole article is incredibly vague, and I actually have no idea what the writers points are.

Lemme guess, meandering stream-of-consciousness bullshit, lots of disclaimers, not many points, but overall proves how very smart the author is.
Favorite format of lefty articles really.

 

[v1rus]

Whole article is incredibly vague, and I actually have no idea what the writers points are.

Lemme guess, meandering stream-of-consciousness bullshit, lots of disclaimers, not many points, but overall proves how very smart the author is.
Favorite format of lefty articles really.

Strangely, no mention of Marx

Granted, I was half asleep when I read it.

 

[abnaxus]

Ian Bogust.

 

[v1rus]

Ian Bogust.

Didnt realize he wrote the piece. Now it all makes sense.

Anyone up for a round of clow clicking?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

You posted an article without having read it first?

 

[v1rus]

You posted an article without having read it first?

Where did you get that from?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Whole article is incredibly vague, and I actually have no idea what the writers points are. Gonna try and read the article again tomorrow, after getting some much needed sleep.

+

Didnt realize he wrote the piece.

Yes, ok, you read it, but only vaguely, but then thought you'd post it anyway. etc etc. I'm probably being over-nitpicky, ignore me.

 

[v1rus]

Didnt realize he wrote the piece.

Yes, ok, you read it, but only vaguely, but then thought you'd post it anyway. etc etc. I'm probably being over-nitpicky, ignore me.

Well, tbh, I'm still not sure did i read it vaguely, or the article is extremely vague by itself - second option stands as a pretty probable thing. Tried reading it again, it just couldn't hold my attention, since there is nothing that resembles a remotely strong argument there. Whole text is "passable". Which is why i posted it, wanna see am I the only one getting that impression, since i strongly disagree with it, or its just a lackluster article.

 

[Metro]

Boring.
Games aren't movies and can tell different kinds of stories. And they can tell them not only through cutscenes and dialogue but also setting, environment, gameplay, or all of the above.

http://frictionalgames.blogspot.de/2017/05/story-what-is-it-good-for.html

Funny you link Frictional Games... the creator of fine 'not-games.'

 

[Machocruz]

For a normal human being, games are something you do to unwind. You might be extremely passionate about your hobby, but that is what it is. A hobby.

To these people and probably most forum users and Youtube commenters you see, video games are become lifestyle. Identity. Central to their universe. I mean come on, 'Mass Effect Confessions'? Worse is that they don't understand their little "gaming community" is a fishbowl. They are a minority. Most people who own something to play games on don't care about 99% of shit they do or agree with their opinions. For example, most people didn't even play The Witcher 3 (compare sales to total hardware sales), and I would venture to say haven't even heard of it. Game is only a huge deal/GOAT in the so called community. That's just one example.

 

[DeepOcean]

The problem with these manchildren is they cannot accept things for what they are. Sometimes you just want to play a game of Monopoly with your family/friends. It is purely a dice rolling and negotiation game. Even the people that made that game didn't see it as some simulation of wealth or something.
Sometimes you want to play Might & Magic II and map a world. It's a game. These manchildren cannot understand this because their entire lives have revolved around games, in a totally disfunctional way. Instead of realizing this (and yeah, playing games has been an important part of life for humans FOREVER), they attribute some weird ass meaning to games, which games are not meant to have.

For a normal human being, games are something you do to unwind. You might be extremely passionate about your hobby, but that is what it is. A hobby.

It is extremely weird to me that these game reviewers are so bizarre. You don't see movie critics acting like this. I mean, Roger Ebert fucking loved movies and spent as much time as he could watching them. But he never acted like some weird autistic shut in, incapable of interacting with other people, which is how I imagine 99% of all video game reviewers.

To be fair, we attribute meaning to anything we like, find pleasurable or find it important, this is how human beings work and not only on the gaming industry. This very site was founded on the idea that games are more than just relax toys otherwise why care at all about old games most of the world forgotten? Games vary wide in scope, I wouldn't place a party game like Monopoly on the same category as Fallout for example. Same as movies, there are the Transformers of life and there are movies that carry real meaning on them.

All good cultural products leave marks on those that consume them and one thing that I mostly despise of the AAA industry is exactly because they take this games as "meaningless" relax toys to such extremes as to be consumed and promptly forgotten next year when the very same game is ready to be sold out again to the very same tards with just a reskin. The problem with this fag reviewer in particular is that he thinks incoherent rambling with look intelligent platitudes mean anything, or on another words, he is a low IQ loser hired by those sites because he was cheap and no person with dignity would become a gaming journalist. Low effort work position seeking for cheap unemployed english major losers, is it a wonder why SJW infest those sites so much?