He might have a point (short link)

[areto]

True, the funny thing is that Henry V was written to be the Elizabethan equivalent of a modern-day movie. The OP's preference for Shakespeare over Spielberg is fine, but the OP used a terrible example if her point was that literature is the best medium.

 

Shakespeare's plays are read more than they're watched these days, but the author's intention was the reverse. FWIW, Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V is one of my favorite movies.

 

As far as the topic goes, I think games are a great story-telling medium. When story-driven games are done well, they can immerse the player as well as any movie can, and they last a lot longer. It's all about the willing suspension of disbelief, no matter what the medium; for games, part of that disbelief revolves around the player's ability to believe that what he does in between cut scenes (the stuff we know as gameplay) is meaningful or at least enjoyable.

 

If you can't convince yourself of that, then you're playing the wrong game. But to be fair, if the gameplay isn't engaging enough on its own merits, then the story is irrelevant; you'd dislike the game whether it was story-driven or not.

 

Plays are classically considered to be part of literature as a whole though, along with prose and poetry.

Edited February 17, 2012 by areto

[Invictos]

Plays are classically considered to be part of literature as a whole though, along with prose, poetry generally.

 

Yes, but as a practical matter, a play 400 years ago was more analogous to a modern-day movie than it was analogous to a novel. The OP is trying to draw a distinction between different forms of media and how they're crafted/consumed.

[lrage]

The problem with SWTOR isn't that it tells a story. It that it relies on that story.

 

MMORPG subscriptions should be measures in months and years. A few weeks and one renewal doesn't cut it.

 

As a game, SWTOR is great. I probably liked it better then I will ME3, but much like ME3, it told a story. And now that the story is done, so is my enjoyment of the game.

 

I had almost no special moments while leveling. It was the story that kept me entertained. I saved the Universe. TWICE!

 

Unlike games like EQ or WoW where I fell in-love with a world and stuck around for end-game, in SWTOR I loved the story. But that story was isolated to me and didn't do anything to help me enjoy the world. I enjoyed my own personal little green laser walled off areas.

 

I logged into WoW for the first time in eons that other night since I activated a free 7-day trial they had sent me. My gear is now a tier old, my stone drake no longer "cool". No guild membership. But it was interesting. I have cooking, fishing, archeology, alchemy and jewelcrafting all maxed. There was a ton I could do that are great downtime fillers. I made about 500g just fishing for a bit and cooking it.

 

MMO's need stuff to do in the world. Sending my companions out to do stuff was awesome. Cept I never want to see it in the genre again cause it totally takes out the "I'm in a virtual world" feeling. It's ME3-good, not MMO-good.

 

And that to me (besides horrible itemization) is the SWTOR downfall and why it will be a ghost town in a few months like WAR was (and WAR had the same exact issues). It's not a world. It's a game.

[areto]

Yes, but as a practical matter, a play 400 years ago was more analogous to a modern-day movie than it was analogous to a novel. The OP is trying to draw a distinction between different forms of media and how they're crafted/consumed.

 

All I'm saying is that they mentioned a play and referred to it as literature and said all literature, presumably including poetry is better for telling stories than video-games. They didn't mention novels at all.

[Dayfax]

Thinking back on games I have played over the years, almost every game--aside from pure action/arcade games--tells a story. The better the stories, the more I like the games. RPGs have been heavily story-based for decades. Adventure games. Even space combat games like Wing Commander and the X-Wing/TIE-Fighter games.

 

Watch the video. He's not saying "games cannot contain any story elements at all." One of the examples he uses of a good game is Arkham City, which obviously contains story elements & the heavy use of IP (he then brings up a specific example from it to illustrate his larger point).

 

On one level, he's making an argument that the best games play to the medium's strengths, and that would be stuff like Modern Warfare, Civilization, and Madden. Basically, pure gameplay that leave enough room for player driven stories. I'd imagine Twisted Metal fits into this scheme too.

 

On another level, he's making the argument that producers need to stop borrowing so heavily from the language of film, because that's the language of a completely different medium & games are strong enough to stand up as their own form.

[Invictos]

All I'm saying is that they mentioned a play and referred to it as literature and said all literature, presumably including poetry is better for telling stories than video-games. They didn't mention novels at all.

 

No, the OP said that movies are inferior to literature, and then s/he used Henry V as an example, which is foolish because Henry V was essentially a movie at the time that it was written. In fact, it's been adapted as a movie more than once, and quite well IMO.

 

You can talk about academic terminology all you want, but you cannot ignore the practical similarities of the media we're discussing. Explicitly or not, the OP's point was that reading > watching, which is a perfectly valid personal preference, but in this case the example was questionable.

[ptwonline]

Watch the video. He's not saying "games cannot contain any story elements at all." One of the examples he uses of a good game is Arkham City, which obviously contains story elements & the heavy use of IP (he then brings up a specific example from it to illustrate his larger point).

 

On one level, he's making an argument that the best games play to the medium's strengths, and that would be stuff like Modern Warfare, Civilization, and Madden. Basically, pure gameplay that leave enough room for player driven stories. I'd imagine Twisted Metal fits into this scheme too.

 

On another level, he's making the argument that producers need to stop borrowing so heavily from the language of film, because that's the language of a completely different medium & games are strong enough to stand up as their own form.

 

First, if you read the rest of my post I addressed different levels of story.

 

Second, video games are a visual medium like movies and television, and are even presented in the same way (flat screen in front of the viewer). However, the medium also has interactive elements because it is a game. I do not see why you would make a distinction that one aspect of the medium--gameplay--is stronger than the other--visual presentation. The interactivity is obviously stronger than that of movies and television, but is it stronger than that of the storytelling possibilities of the medium? I don't necessarily think so.

 

The combination of gameplay with strong story is a powerful. It merely comes down to a question of HOW that story is presented and how it is balanced with gameplay. Personally, I don't think there's any real problem with a video game that is heavy on the cinematics but light on gameplay and short overall. The bottom line is this: did the customer enjoy it? Did they feel that they got their money's worth? Beyond those basic questions it's just varying levels of artistic preferences and snobbery, IMO.

Edited February 17, 2012 by ptwonline

[areto]

No, the OP said that movies are inferior to literature, and then s/he used Henry V as an example, which is foolish because Henry V was essentially a movie at the time that it was written. In fact, it's been adapted as a movie more than once, and quite well IMO.

 

You can talk about academic terminology all you want, but you cannot ignore the practical similarities of the media we're discussing. Explicitly or not, the OP's point was that reading > watching, which is a perfectly valid personal preference, but in this case the example was questionable.

 

I can ignore the practical similarities all I want.

 

People also use to gather into a theater to watch a beheading as a form of cheap and crass entertainment, that doesn't make it the same thing as a film.

 

Novels and movies both contain dialog/setting/characters/plot/devices but yet through all their similarity they are not the same.

 

A play and a film are as different as they are the same.

 

you can write your own meaning, which isn't there, into that post but it's point is explicitly 'Literature is the best medium in which to tell a story.'

 

And gives as an example how a play is better than a film.

 

Which as you say have their similarities and so I would think of them as being the best comparison between literary and non-literary modes of expression.

Edited February 17, 2012 by areto

[Dayfax]

The combination of gameplay with strong story is a powerful. It merely comes down to a question of HOW that story is presented and how it is balanced with gameplay. Personally, I don't think there's any real problem with a video game that is heavy on the cinematics but light on gameplay and short overall. The bottom line is this: did the customer enjoy it? Did they feel that they got their money's worth? Beyond those basic questions it's just varying levels of artistic preferences and snobbery, IMO.

 

His argument seems to be that gameplay is entirely the point, and if you're telling a straight story via a series of cutscenes then videogames might not be the right medium.

 

As to your second point ... It's that kind if thinking that brings the world a continuous stream of Adam Sandler movies.

 

There isn't anything wrong with pure entertinment value -- but saying, "hey, it's all good as long as the customer is happy" is a really freakin' low bar to set for yourself.

 

Keep in mind this is a well known developer who was speaking at a gaming conference, and his primary concerns with this talk is defining the medium & pushing it forward.

[VanorDM]

I can ignore the practical similarities all I want.

 

Wow you're really reaching aren't you?

 

The post in question was saying that a Play is inherently better then a Movie for telling a story. All of which I consider to be completely nonsense, and no more valid then this idea that somehow a physical book is somehow superior to a eBook on my ebook reader, or on a PC.

 

There have been a number of video games with stories in them that were IMO superior to many books I've read, plays or movies I've seen. Anyone who thinks that a Video Game can't tell a good story, is quite frankly either delusional or close minded and refuses to see the value of something due purely to the medium used.

[Invictos]

I can ignore the practical similarities all I want.

 

People also use to gather into a theater to watch a beheading as a form of cheap and crass entertainment, that doesn't make it the same thing as a film.

 

Novels and movies both contain dialog/setting/characters/plot/devices but yet through all their similarity they are not the same.

 

A play and a film are as different as they are the same.

 

you can write your own meaning, which isn't there, into that post but it's point is explicitly 'Literature is the best medium in which to tell a story.'

 

And gives as an example how a play is better than a film.

 

Which as you say have their similarities and so I would think of them as being the best example.

 

I can read for context. You can choose to disagree, but your interpretation relies on an entirely arbitrary distinction. Whether the OP prefers (or you prefer) a particular play over a particular movie says absolutely nothing about the relative quality of plays as a whole class versus movies as a whole class. I'm sure I can cherry pick a play you don't like and a movie you do; would that substantiate the opposite opinion?

 

Let's face it: Shakespeare's plays survived because they're good. Any so-called classic by definition has an advantage over a hat-picked modern offering, simply because it's got a proven track record. There's a reason most people can hum along to the classic rock station but only 20-somethings recognize the bulk of the music on current stations. The stuff on the classic rock station (regardless of your personal preference) generally has a better spread of "good" songs on it -- not because music writers 30 years ago were better in every way, but because the bad stuff they wrote generally didn't survive.

 

Even art obeys Darwin's principles.

 

In 300 years, for all I know (and for all you know), Saving Private Ryan will be mentioned in the same breath with the greatest plays literature has to offer. Personally I'm not a huge fan of that particular movie, but the fact that academia generally lumps plays together with poetry and with (prose) novels has very little to do with any inherent similarity in those media, and everything to do with the fact that they tend to be time-tested. I think it would be foolish to expect that movies won't eventually reach the same vaunted status as a broad form of art; in many ways, they already have.

 

TL;DR - So with all of that rambling out of the way, the only reasonable interpretation of the OP's post comparing Saving Private Ryan with "literature" is that s/he was trying to draw a distinction between the written work and performed work. All other distinctions are subjective and (quite apart from the OP's explicit disclaimer that her opinion is "objective") ultimately pointless to discuss.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Invictos

[Inarai]

On one level, he's making an argument that the best games play to the medium's strengths, and that would be stuff like Modern Warfare, Civilization, and Madden. Basically, pure gameplay that leave enough room for player driven stories. I'd imagine Twisted Metal fits into this scheme too.

 

I see two statements without connection.

 

Playing to the mediums strengths is part of good storytelling in any medium.

 

Modern Warfare and Madden do not, in a million years, fit under the category of "best games", either. Won't really comment on Civ.

[MustrumRidcully]

This particular quote really hit home:

 

 

 

I couldn't help but think of TOR when I read this. Its the same symptom - a game that has focused on its cinematic element to the detriment of its actual gameplay.

 

Adding actual story to all kinds of games is actually part of enhancing their gameplay.

 

I do not believe in perfect games. I believe in games that are good for a particular audience and particular play style. I don't think it's a big surprise that modern FPS for examples seem so similar - "perfecting" those games was always more based on graphics and performance then anything else. But now they reached a level where they are pretty good, and while improvement is possible, it won't make such a big difference anymore. So it's just natural to give other aspects more focus and develop them further. Other aspects certainly include story-telling.

 

My favorite RTS games where always the Command & Conquer series. My least favorite was Generals. It was mechanically the most innovative, but it had a non-existent story. I wanted that story and the found the "old" mechanics much more appealing.

 

The problem with SWTOR isn't that it tells a story. It that it relies on that story.

 

MMORPG subscriptions should be measures in months and years. A few weeks and one renewal doesn't cut it.

 

Just one thing: I am a player. I don't have to care for Bioware's bottom line. The only relevant question is if I enjoy the game and don't feel the money I spent was wasted. It's not that important to me that I can keep spending money on it.

 

I think sometimes we players are thinking too much about problem's that are entirely on Bioware. We didn't pay any of those 200 Million or whatever upfront to play this game and need to get that money's worth. We only need to get back in enjoyment the worth of the game box and our subscription.

Edited February 17, 2012 by MustrumRidcully