Editorial Deus Ex, and Why Game Narratives Fail

[Angthoron]

It's pretty simple really.

Bad story: "Someone told me there was a guy robbing [XYZ] bank. He got arrested."

Less bad story: "I was at the XYZ bank yesterday and someone robbed it while I was there! I had to get down on the floor and everything. The cops came and negotiated the robber's arrest after he took a dude hostage."

OK story (i.e., LOTR): "I was at the XYZ bank yesterday and someone robbed it while I was there! I had to get down on the floor and everything. The cops came and the robber took me hostage for no apparent reason!!! But it all worked out in the end."

Good story: "I was at the XYZ bank yesterday and someone robbed it while I was there! I had to get down on the floor and everything. The cops came and, you know me and my big mouth, I told the robber to turn himself in. Because I spoke up, he took me hostage and made demands. The cops failed to negotiate with him and I thought I was going to die. But I ended up using my big mouth to smooth-talk the robber into releasing me and turning himself in."

There's also the cool story, which involves the cops and the robbers all giving the guy in question a fellatio.



Also, OK story (i.e., LOTR) would go like this:

Chapter 1:

On the topic of Money and Banking.

[...]

Chapter 2: About the city the bank robbery took place.

[...]

Chapter 3:

"Forsooth I was at the XYZ bank a fortnight ago and yon ruffians robbed it while I was therein. Alas, I had to get down on the floor et cetera and so forth. The fine policepersons came and the bandit took me hostage for no apparent reason, however to much joy of everyone it all worked out in the end."

Chapter 4: On the nature of the Police Handcuffs.

[...]

Chapter 5: The obligatory tobacco pipe chapter.

[...]

 

[villain of the story]

so the lord of the rings sux because there's no story, just situations and lore digressions?

It sucks because it's a wooden fictive history book that reads as banal shit boring as a poor real history book and about just as personal. It's as exciting as reading an Excel sheet. Data over data which adds up to make a graph that tells you a "story" by providing statistics. If I look at a graph for... any number of things laid out over a time period, I'm certain I will find a story there too.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Sorry, but they're mostly correct. If your main character is just a cipher for the audience then why have that character at all? You could remove the character and tell the same story. Characters that are ciphers for the audience are cheap tricks to try to capture audience empathy without earning it. Also, it is appealing to dumb people who would fail to understand what's happening without someone to explain it to them.

A perfect story has no wasted elements and a main character that serves no intrinsic purpose is a massive wasted element.

Frodo in LOTR is a crappy character because there is nothing about him that makes him suitable to be "the one." He's only "the one" by virtue of his relationship to his uncle or whatever. He has no real character traits or anything. He's just a random Hobbit. His struggle with the allure of the ring has nothing to do with his own character. The ring does that trick to everyone.

lol how can you remove the character and tell the same story if none was there to see it? You necessarily need someone to report it. If you remove that character, and tell the story anyway, the "reporter" is the writer, he'll still be a character, wasted. So you might as well picture a slightly better character that's still just a reporter.

One Frodo character is not wasted anyway, because portraying such a "thin" character can be quite artistically pleasant to read, he can "blend" himself with events, the reader will attribute his own personality to him/her

Guybrush Threepwood is, as far as i'm concerned, nomore than an avatar, infact i would infuse some of my personality in "him", to "complete" his attitude. For me Guybrush is the average dude of the '90s, slick and mean spirited, the perfect spokesman of us bright adventurers whose experience with C64 made us into rough and goofy gemstones.

 

[SCO]

so the lord of the rings sux because there's no story, just situations and lore digressions?

You'll actually find a lot people who think that, especially in the literature departments of most universities. They cant wrap their head around that sometimes the protagonist is a vessel for portraying the story rather than the subject of it.

Sorry, but they're mostly correct. If your main character is just a cipher for the audience then why have that character at all? You could remove the character and tell the same story. Characters that are ciphers for the audience are cheap tricks to try to capture audience empathy without earning it. Also, it is appealing to dumb people who would fail to understand what's happening without someone to explain it to them.

A perfect story has no wasted elements and a main character that serves no intrinsic purpose is a massive wasted element.

Frodo in LOTR is a crappy character because there is nothing about him that makes him suitable to be "the one." He's only "the one" by virtue of his relationship to his uncle or whatever. He has no real character traits or anything. He's just a random Hobbit. His struggle with the allure of the ring has nothing to do with his own character. The ring does that trick to everyone.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

so the lord of the rings sux because there's no story, just situations and lore digressions?

It sucks because it's a wooden fictive history book that reads as banal shit boring as a poor real history book and about just as personal. It's as exciting as reading an Excel sheet. Data over data which adds up to make a graph that tells you a "story" by providing statistics. If I look at a graph for... any number of things laid out over a time period, I'm certain I will find a story there too.

If you blame lotr because it's a not personal You can't say a POOR history book, just a history book, because a history book can't be personal.

 

[Castanova]

lol how can you remove the character and tell the same story if none was there to see it? You necessarily need someone to report it. If you remove that character, and tell the story anyway, the "reporter" is the writer, he'll still be a character, wasted. So you might as well picture a slightly better character that's still just a reporter.

One Frodo character is not wasted anyway, because portraying such a "thin" character can be quite artistically pleasant to read, he can "blend" himself with events, the reader will attribute his own personality to him/her

Guybrush Threepwood is, as far as i'm concerned, nomore than an avatar, infact i would infuse some of my personality in "him", to "complete" his attitude. For me Guybrush is the average dude of the '90s, slick and mean spirited, the perfect spokesman of us rough and bright adventurers

Um, dude, you are completely missing the point. You can't remove Frodo from the story because he's the one who carries the ring. You CAN however remove Frodo's CHARACTER from the story and replace him with someone else (say, any other random Hobbit) and the story wouldn't change at all. That's because there's nothing about Frodo that makes him central to the story. I don't agree with Zomg that his "mercy" makes Frodo "the one" because it's not like Hobbits are going around showing no mercy left and right.

Furthermore, adventure games are not, even in the slightest, applicable to this argument because they're, oh I don't know... games?

But since you insist on framing the analysis of LOTR with game design, let's put it this way: LOTR is an RPG that doesn't react at all, no choices, no consequences, to your character (Frodo).

 

[Archibald]

Furthermore, adventure games are not, even in the slightest, applicable to this argument because they're, oh I don't know... games?

But since you insist on framing the analysis of LOTR with game design, let's put it this way: LOTR is an RPG that doesn't react at all, no choices, no consequences, to your character (Frodo).

Not only did you miss whole point of his example but you even came up with something even more retarded than last time

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Um, dude, you are completely missing the point. You can't remove Frodo from the story because he's the one who carries the ring. You CAN however remove Frodo's CHARACTER from the story and replace him with someone else (say, any other random Hobbit) and the story wouldn't change at all. That's because there's nothing about Frodo that makes him central to the story. I don't agree with Zomg that his "mercy" makes Frodo "the one" because it's not like Hobbits are going around showing no mercy left and right.

fine then i agree. And yes compassion is common to humanity, every reader can relate to that mercy. So Frodo is just one any hobbit. And that's good,Tolkien might have done Frodo this way since hobbits are sujpposed to be english men, english men would read his novel and english men would feel like Frodo. Isn't that a good way to immerse the reader into the tale?

Furthermore, adventure games are not, even in the slightest, applicable to this argument because they're, oh I don't know... games?

Well the point was that Guybrush is another Frodo.

But since you insist on framing the analysis of LOTR with game design, let's put it this way: LOTR is an RPG that doesn't react at all, no choices, no consequences, to your character (Frodo).

You're right. I should have said "then fallout sux", for the same reasons as lotr. The Geck is the ring, no?

What about Beatrix Kiddo? Isn't she a deliberately weak character whose events befall on her? We know so little about her we don't understand her reason for revenge.

 

[Castanova]

I hope you're not claiming that Kill Bill is a great movie. Sure, it's fun, but...

You don't need to know about a character's history, necessarily. The character is expressed through their actions. Just like, when you play an RPG, your character choices affect the proceedings.

You seem to be saying that Frodo is just a cipher for the Hobbit community which is just a cipher for the British. Perhaps that's what Tolkien intended but that doesn't make it good writing. Frodo doesn't really do anything throughout the story that relies on his character. He just knows he's gotta bring the ring somewhere and he does it. The fact that he doesn't viciously murder a living being (Gollum) is not what I'd call a unique character trait.

Even though Kill Bill isn't great, Beatrix does have a particular character which she expresses through her single-minded, relentless pursuit of revenge. The survival of the world is not hanging in the balance nor is there a friendly Wizard nudging her along toward her goal. She does it because she needs to.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

I hope you're not claiming that Kill Bill is a great movie. Sure, it's fun, but...

You don't need to know about a character's history, necessarily. The character is expressed through their actions. Just like, when you play an RPG, your character choices affect the proceedings.

You seem to be saying that Frodo is just a cipher for the Hobbit community which is just a cipher for the British. Perhaps that's what Tolkien intended but that doesn't make it good writing. Frodo doesn't really do anything throughout the story that relies on his character. He just knows he's gotta bring the ring somewhere and he does it. The fact that he doesn't viciously murder a living being (Gollum) is not what I'd call a unique character trait.

Even though Kill Bill isn't great, Beatrix does have a particular character which she expresses through her single-minded, relentless pursuit of revenge. The survival of the world is not hanging in the balance nor is there a friendly Wizard nudging her along toward her goal. She does it because she needs to.

mmm ok now i know you're actually agreeing with the IGN dude. Ouch, things worsen before they improve. You're saying that the ONLY GOOD writing there is is when characters are fully depicted, a 100% rounded-out personality, and the consequence of this is logically that events that happen to them are direct consequence of their personalities, or "characters", as you put it. Which is exactly what the IGN person said. The man, and you, are also advocates of good choices & consequences because they make the character be the artifex of his own world, they draw his/her morality too. This can be also valid for a movie(in a non-interactive way ofc).

It's a linear thought. 100% personality good, 50% is bad, it's always bad writing.

You're saying, then, that there can't be a character that's deliberately left out thin, transparent, avatar-like, impersonal and still be, in correlation to the type of story theretold, the ONLY OPTIMAL choice. Naturally, if Jensen never changes, there were no meaningful C&C.

Incidentally you also say that it's the type of story that dictates how much of the character we need to know. Certain plots require certain types of characters, and in kill bill we don't NEED to know about Kiddo's motivations, she just "has" to do the stuff she does. Still, you say that Kill Bill isn't a great movie, ok. If we knew more about Beatrix, and by extension the events were more understandable, would you think higher of the movie?

Oh by the way:

plot: Dude goes to the bank, then goes to the office, then to have lunch, then back to office, then home, then to the pub, and finally to bed.

story: The friday of a metropolitan dude.

 

[Castanova]

It's a linear thought. 100% personality good, 50% is bad, it's always bad writing.

I never said anything like that.

You're saying, then, that there can't be a character that's deliberately left out thin, transparent, avatar-like, impersonal and still be, in correlation to the type of story theretold, the ONLY OPTIMAL choice.

If you're talking about some kind of Chorus-esque character that is a proxy for the audience, then sure, make them a cipher. But if you're talking about a main character, whose actions are supposed to drive the story or have a significant effect on it, then no -- a thinly drawn character can not be the optimal choice. What would you possibly lose by actually doing your job as a writer and creating a character?

If we knew more about Beatrix, and by extension the events were more understandable, would you think higher of the movie?

No. For the type of movie it is (a AAA exploitation pastiche), we know plenty about Beatrix. The problem with Kill Bill is that it's a AAA exploitation pastiche.

 

[Zomg]

I don't agree with Zomg that his "mercy" makes Frodo "the one" because it's not like Hobbits are going around showing no mercy left and right.

In most of Two Towers and RotK, Frodo is in the Frodo-Sam-Gollum parallel triplet where they are all Hobbits and they all contrast with one another, and the interactions are very demonstrative of what I said.

The reason you think it is not important is because you are used to the cruelty and murder- worship of modern antiheroes, who have "character" all over I guess

 

[deus101]

FUCKING STORYFAGS!

Gamestories are suppose to be campy, eccentric and fantastical!

THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO WIN NOBLES PRIZES IN LITERATURE!

 

[Metro]

The best storytelling games—Portal...

Stopped reading there.

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

Haven't played HR yet, but it sounds like he's bashing it for the conspiracy aspect.

The Brotherhood shills also bash on movies like The Matrix, V for Vendetta, Equilibrium and Dark City for the same reason.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Sorry, but they're mostly correct. If your main character is just a cipher for the audience then why have that character at all? You could remove the character and tell the same story. Characters that are ciphers for the audience are cheap tricks to try to capture audience empathy without earning it. Also, it is appealing to dumb people who would fail to understand what's happening without someone to explain it to them.

A perfect story has no wasted elements and a main character that serves no intrinsic purpose is a massive wasted element.

Frodo in LOTR is a crappy character because there is nothing about him that makes him suitable to be "the one." He's only "the one" by virtue of his relationship to his uncle or whatever. He has no real character traits or anything. He's just a random Hobbit. His struggle with the allure of the ring has nothing to do with his own character. The ring does that trick to everyone.

lol how can you remove the character and tell the same story if none was there to see it? You necessarily need someone to report it. If you remove that character, and tell the story anyway, the "reporter" is the writer, he'll still be a character, wasted. So you might as well picture a slightly better character that's still just a reporter.

One Frodo character is not wasted anyway, because portraying such a "thin" character can be quite artistically pleasant to read, he can "blend" himself with events, the reader will attribute his own personality to him/her

Guybrush Threepwood is, as far as i'm concerned, nomore than an avatar, infact i would infuse some of my personality in "him", to "complete" his attitude. For me Guybrush is the average dude of the '90s, slick and mean spirited, the perfect spokesman of us bright adventurers whose experience with C64 made us into rough and goofy gemstones.

Going from The Hobbit as a 8 yr old to LotR as a young teenager (13?), and re-reading them since, my main impression of Frodo's character was that:
(a) in Fellowship, he is mainly an observer (with the 'big character arc' stuff going to the rest of the fellowship); but
(b) his character does have some crucial traits, primarily in distinguishing him from Bilbo. Bilbo was the consumate 'adventurer personality'. He's brave, but moreover, he's dissatisfied at home and wants to go out and explore the world. Frodo isn't like that. Frodo is reluctant, and would be perfectly happy living in the Shire, if it wasn't that he was unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of a cursed ring. That's right, Frodo was emo decades before his time.

The point with that is that matches Tolkein's own war experiences. Bilbo goes out of adventurousness, Frodo goes out of duty. And if there is one character trait that is central to LotR's themes, and is central to Frodo, it is duty.

(c) Frodo does get a character arc, but it is the slowest out of all the characters. Most characters, other than Aragorn and Frodo, only really get an arc in one book, and stay stagnant throughout the other two. E.g. everything you need to know about Gimli and Legolas is established by the end of Fellowship. Everything you need to know about Merry and Pippen is established in The Two Towers (i.e. in starting off naive jokester Bilbo-lite characters, getting separated, maturing and facing their duty). Frodo (and Sam) move the slowest - having virtually zero arc in Fellowship, but a decent amount in the Two Towers, and a fuckload in Return of the King.

I'm not going to go into an argument about why LoTR is 'capital L literature' and why Harry Potter isn't, as frankly I've learnt long ago that that's pointless. I also readily acknowledge that being Literature doesn't necessarily make a book more enjoyable, or even more of an achievement, than a top pop novel - if I had to list my favourite novels, sure there'd be some Literature works (Heart of Darkness, Nostromo, The Plague, Frankenstein) but there'd also be plenty of 'pop-fiction' (Trainspotting, Maribou Stork Nightmares, American Psycho, Glamorama, a fair chunk of the The Dark Tower series...). Though I will say that its merits have little to do with 'omg he wrote a history around the book!!!' (though obviously that particular method worked well for him).

 

[eugene2k]

They should have focused more on Jensen struggling to come to terms with his "enhancements".

That gets old as soon as you try to replay the game for the second time. Games are not movies. It seems though very few people understand that.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

If you're talking about some kind of Chorus-esque character that is a proxy for the audience, then sure, make them a cipher. But if you're talking about a main character, whose actions are supposed to drive the story or have a significant effect on it, then no -- a thinly drawn character can not be the optimal choice. What would you possibly lose by actually doing your job as a writer and creating a character?

If we knew more about Beatrix, and by extension the events were more understandable, would you think higher of the movie?

No. For the type of movie it is (a AAA exploitation pastiche), we know plenty about Beatrix. The problem with Kill Bill is that it's a AAA exploitation pastiche.

Ok. It is a valid point.
But consider this, for example: doesn't a superfical personality leave you more wondering(creating more suspense) when it's time to make a choice? I'm not only referring to Frodo's final choice, but in a game, a character that's left generic, doesnt' it allow for a wider array of choices? If fallout's vault guy had a personality defined by your own choices, could he still take a choice in front of the, uh, brain thing at the end?

 

[Regdar]

That gets old as soon as you try to replay the game for the second time. Games are not movies. It seems though very few people understand that.

How does adding another dimension to the protagonist take away from replay value? You replay a game because a) you're too lazy to youtube different quest outcomes/endings; b) you enjoy the combat; c) the game in question is KotoR.

That is not to say there aren't any highly replayable RPGs out there, but those are exclusively combatfag titles.

btw this is a game optimized for maximum replayability:

 

[kaizoku]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -ever.html

"Taylor Clark is a writer based in Portland. His new book is Nerve: Poise Under Pressure, Serenity Under Stress, and the Brave New Science of Fear and Cool."

You know what to do guys.

oh wait... this isn't 4chan

feelsbadman.jpg

 

[mondblut]

There's also the cool story, which reads: "It was I who robbed a [XYZ] bank and got away with 10 millions dollars, LOL"

Fixed

Also, storyfags in this thread prove that the "fag" part should be taken quite literally. They probably own macbooks and sip a lot of latte, too.

Stuff your "character development" up your overworked asses, fools. There is only one kind of character development, it concerns distributing bonus points over an excel-like sheet.

 

[deus101]

There's also the cool story, which reads: "It was I who robbed a [XYZ] bank and got away with 10 millions dollars, LOL"

Fixed

Also, storyfags in this thread prove that the "fag" part should be taken quite literally. They probably own macbooks and sip a lot of latte, too.

Stuff your "character development" up your overworked asses, fools. There is only one kind of character development, it concerns distributing bonus points over an excel-like sheet.

"BUT BUT BUT RPG iS...A ROLE.. YOU PLAY IN A STORY!"

 

[Black]

The best storytelling games—Portal, Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption, Enslaved, and Bioshock, to name a few

Yup, thanks doc. This dose of retardation will last me for months

 

[JarlFrank]

Story: First, the queen sleeps with the king. Then, she kills the king.

Plot: The queen and king sleep with each other cause they're in love. But then the queen kills him because she's pissed at his poor performance in bed.

Story = sequence of events
Plot = reasons and motivations behind the events

 

[DragoFireheart]

I'm pretty sure that this entire topic has dropped my IQ in some way.

Thank you IGN, Codex, and the rest of you cunts for making me stupider.