Just posted this as a comment
here, but I figured the relevant portion was important enough to warrant its own post. Changed slightly to make it feel more complete as a piece of writing:
With video game storytelling, the biggest problem is pretty simple: devs are usually so focused on making the game a "good" experience for the player that they feel compelled to take fewer risks with storytelling. As a result, you get a lot of cliches that could be easily subverted but aren't, and very few genuinely surprising moments of real emotion. As long as developers confuse positive emotions with real emotions, we won't see nearly as many truly great stories in games as we see in other mediums. Think about, for example, how you felt when Aeris died. Now imagine that you could have saved her, but didn't make it in time. Oh, and it autosaves as soon as she dies. I submit that that moment would have been substantially more affecting. It would not, however, be a moment most devs would dare put into their games, because that would "negatively affect the player experience."
Not that gamers aren't to blame as well. Consider the example of a game like Dead Spsce; I was often amused to see reviewers mention that Isaac felt "like a glorified repairman" at certain points, completely missing the fact that Isaac's job is that of - shock horror! - a repairman. But because the game didn't go out of its way to "make you feel like a badass," it was criticized.
So yes, this idea that the player is entitled to "feeling good" throughout a game is messing up otherwise interesting stories, and I won't stand for it any more.
[rousingspeech]Now who's with me!?[/rousingspeech]
Anyway. Something to consider next time you're hammering away at the buttons.
Ffordesoon's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Putting the user through some strife, I think, is going to be valuable to progressing the possibilities of fun and immerssion in games.
Heavens, what a coincidence! Your mother said exactly the same thing to me only last night! Perhaps it is a family trait?
@Tubatic:
I'm torn. I don't think I feel the same way about MMOs; when I spend that much time in a fictional world, I definitely want everything in the interface to work as smoothly and efficiently as possible. I more or less want it to disappear. I have problems with Warcraft, but mine are somewhat at odds with yours; when I quit playing it last time (which, I should point out, was over a year ago, so it may have changed), it was mainly because the game was forcing me to find the fun far more than I wanted it to. I've never played an MMO that I've loved for an extended period, but Warcraft is still better than the others I've played, so you can imagine how I feel about those.
Single-player, though? Definitely. The thing that happens in Fallout 3 when you turn in Mr. Burke solidified my love for the game, and that definitely wasn't a feel-good moment.
I'm actually working on another post regarding MMOs. Look for it soon.
I will point to 'time traveling' in Animal Crossing as an example. Consequences be damned, people cheat the game and the imposed 'reality' to get the outcome they want, or to speed up the process. Resetti keeps you somewhat honest, but not nearly honest enough.
We, the gamers, are at fault for this lack of 'literary' devices in our hobby of choice. If we demand good story and more a more 'realistic' action/consequence structure, I think that developers would respond.
I will point to 'time traveling' in Animal Crossing as an example. Consequences be damned, people cheat the game and the imposed 'reality' to get the outcome they want, or to speed up the process. Resetti keeps you somewhat honest, but not nearly honest enough.
We, the gamers, are at fault for this lack of 'literary' devices in our hobby of choice. If we demand good story and more a more 'realistic' action/consequence structure, I think that developers would respond.