I really don’t understand the meaning behind this article. It’s just so weird and doesn’t really make sense. Does the CEO of EA write for the Atlantic?
Seriously though time and time again story driven single player experiences crush sales records. Elden ring is the latest, ghosts of Tsushima before that, and god of war before that. All these games are considered masterpieces and have a captivating story. I’d argue the story and lore of elden ring is more in depth and expansive than most movies or TV shows made now a days.
Not only that, if this where true, how come every time Hollywood tries to take a video game IP and make a movie it comes out terrible? Resident evil, hitman, assassins creed. If movies and TV and books are such superior medium they should produce better content with that IP. Of course they don’t, because a video game is a much more intimate experience than a movie or TV show and the author somehow missed that.
I don’t know just a weird article that doesn’t really make sense to me
Indeed. The article came across to me as “video games with a story are too hard for me, therefore they’re not as good as movies”. I can kind of sympathize with this position (there are some games I have to turn down to easy in order to enjoy them and not get frustrated) but I certainly don’t share it.
Yeah, it's very well written but seems to be forcing a conclusion. The one it arrives at misses the point of a medium, which is to be explored for all that can be done with it. Whether it's currently good or bad at expressing certain forms isn't the point, as effectiveness can change with usage of the medium. I certainly hope that we don't only get horror games because that's what the author seems to claim video games are only good for. It even touches on environments as video games become VR worlds with avatars. We have no idea what will work well and the article certainly doesn't.
> Yes, sure, you can tell a story in a game. But what a lot of work that is, when it’s so much easier to watch television, or to read. A greater ambition, which the game accomplishes more effectively anyway: to show the delightful curiosity that can be made when stories, games, comics, game engines, virtual environments—and anything else, for that matter—can be taken apart and put back together again unexpectedly.
> To dream of the Holodeck is just to dream a complicated dream of the novel. If there is a future of games, let alone a future in which they discover their potential as a defining medium of an era, it will be one in which games abandon the dream of becoming narrative media and pursue the one they are already so good at: taking the tidy, ordinary world apart and putting it back together again in surprising, ghastly new ways.
Elden ring is absolutely not story or narrative driven.
There is plenty of lore in the game but the actual narrative is basically nonexistent.
> how come every time Hollywood tries to take a video game IP and make a movie it comes out terrible? Resident evil, hitman, assassins creed
There are good and bad examples here. The recent Mortal Kombat movie was well received. Arcane is fantastic.
The real answer is that people have actual standards for movie/tv show stories. The resident evil games and movies are a great example.
The movies arguably have a better and more fleshed out story than the video games but because they are being judged against other movies, they seem terrible.
I can agree the elden ring isn’t narrative driven but I do think it has lots of story and lore that you have the option to dig into. One player could play it and see no story at all while another reads everything and knows the history of the land.
I suppose I did forget about arcane, although I feel like that’s an exception and an outlier.
I disagree that the movies are arguably better and have a more fleshed out story. In the case of resident evil, the story of the games is leagues ahead of the movie franchise story. I think so much so that’s it’s not actually enjoyable for fans of the video game.
The Witcher is another good example. Amazing game, fantastic story that has rich lore. The show is decent, and does do a fairly good job. It just guts the story though, and I lost interest in season 2 as it got more off track.
The author would say that the Witcher TV series is better than the games, story wise, but anyone who’s played the games always says the same thing, the shows not nearly as good.
I honestly think they are two mediums you can’t really compare. One is a passive media consumption, whilst the other is a engaging media consumption. A game puts you in the drivers seat and makes you feel like you’re in control. You may have limited control, but you can still feel like you have an outcome on the story. I think that’s a powerful tool that can’t translate to movies or tv shows. When I watch the Witcher, I’m watching Gerald fight monsters and roughly follow the same lines as the books. When I play the Witcher I am Geralt and I have control in how my Geralt comes across. You just can’t replicate that in tradition media.
> Film, television, and literature all tell them better. So why are games still obsessed with narrative?
Well, hey now... Nothing wrong with changing the medium. It should be encouraged! Storytelling shouldn't be constricted to a single format. Imagine how interesting and engaging it would be if school children could interact with a literary world in the classroom.
Specifically I'm reminded of playing user-generated levels in Little Big Planet.
Some of those were especially engaging and told an amazing story and if you followed the creator on Youtube, you could sometimes play an entire storyline when another level was introduced.
The other comments here hit the nail on the head with the article forcing a biased conclusion.
The most memorable stories in my life come firstly from books (though movie adaptations in some cases have beaten the books for me personally), then a couple movies, a couple television shows, and a large percentage of the games I played.
Final fantasy, Jak series, Ratchet & Clank, Zelda Ocarina of Time, resident evil, God of War, Uncharted, etc...there are so many franchises which are based around telling stories.....imo the entire history of gaming depends on compelling stories taking it from just run-based games and arcades to....characters and plot lines....it wasn't the graphics and power....graphics weren't very fancy when they started....text based games depended on stories and and experience partially under control of the player.
who wrote this....it's poorly thought out imo and doesn't seem to be attributing the proper recognition for good stories that have stemmed from games....it seems like the author is secretly just trying to push inane VR sandboxes on the world......like we need more of those....
and if they are being reductionist, they seem to have failed to suggest the inevitability of stories to be fractal in nature and to mirror common threads eternally.
finally, the author seems to completely miss the concept of emergent gameplay and how even though story may be scripted heavily or loosely - it is the variations in how the story plays out which emerge from the gameplay intermixed. while a walking simulator may not have much gameplay, it still mostly allows the user to control the experience and craft their own meaning behind it from between the lines of the delivered story such as trying to go back or reverse the flow events by resetting to a point in the past after failing a mission....not because the story needs it, but because you want to give the story its proper justice and fulfill on the motivations of the characters....
9 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] threadSeriously though time and time again story driven single player experiences crush sales records. Elden ring is the latest, ghosts of Tsushima before that, and god of war before that. All these games are considered masterpieces and have a captivating story. I’d argue the story and lore of elden ring is more in depth and expansive than most movies or TV shows made now a days.
Not only that, if this where true, how come every time Hollywood tries to take a video game IP and make a movie it comes out terrible? Resident evil, hitman, assassins creed. If movies and TV and books are such superior medium they should produce better content with that IP. Of course they don’t, because a video game is a much more intimate experience than a movie or TV show and the author somehow missed that.
I don’t know just a weird article that doesn’t really make sense to me
> Yes, sure, you can tell a story in a game. But what a lot of work that is, when it’s so much easier to watch television, or to read. A greater ambition, which the game accomplishes more effectively anyway: to show the delightful curiosity that can be made when stories, games, comics, game engines, virtual environments—and anything else, for that matter—can be taken apart and put back together again unexpectedly.
> To dream of the Holodeck is just to dream a complicated dream of the novel. If there is a future of games, let alone a future in which they discover their potential as a defining medium of an era, it will be one in which games abandon the dream of becoming narrative media and pursue the one they are already so good at: taking the tidy, ordinary world apart and putting it back together again in surprising, ghastly new ways.
Your comment would make more sense if it were “games that check all the boxes sell”.
There is plenty of lore in the game but the actual narrative is basically nonexistent.
> how come every time Hollywood tries to take a video game IP and make a movie it comes out terrible? Resident evil, hitman, assassins creed
There are good and bad examples here. The recent Mortal Kombat movie was well received. Arcane is fantastic.
The real answer is that people have actual standards for movie/tv show stories. The resident evil games and movies are a great example.
The movies arguably have a better and more fleshed out story than the video games but because they are being judged against other movies, they seem terrible.
I suppose I did forget about arcane, although I feel like that’s an exception and an outlier.
I disagree that the movies are arguably better and have a more fleshed out story. In the case of resident evil, the story of the games is leagues ahead of the movie franchise story. I think so much so that’s it’s not actually enjoyable for fans of the video game.
The Witcher is another good example. Amazing game, fantastic story that has rich lore. The show is decent, and does do a fairly good job. It just guts the story though, and I lost interest in season 2 as it got more off track.
The author would say that the Witcher TV series is better than the games, story wise, but anyone who’s played the games always says the same thing, the shows not nearly as good.
I honestly think they are two mediums you can’t really compare. One is a passive media consumption, whilst the other is a engaging media consumption. A game puts you in the drivers seat and makes you feel like you’re in control. You may have limited control, but you can still feel like you have an outcome on the story. I think that’s a powerful tool that can’t translate to movies or tv shows. When I watch the Witcher, I’m watching Gerald fight monsters and roughly follow the same lines as the books. When I play the Witcher I am Geralt and I have control in how my Geralt comes across. You just can’t replicate that in tradition media.
mayeb because the video game doesn't offer a good enough story to adapt.
Well, hey now... Nothing wrong with changing the medium. It should be encouraged! Storytelling shouldn't be constricted to a single format. Imagine how interesting and engaging it would be if school children could interact with a literary world in the classroom.
Specifically I'm reminded of playing user-generated levels in Little Big Planet.
Some of those were especially engaging and told an amazing story and if you followed the creator on Youtube, you could sometimes play an entire storyline when another level was introduced.
The other comments here hit the nail on the head with the article forcing a biased conclusion.
The most memorable stories in my life come firstly from books (though movie adaptations in some cases have beaten the books for me personally), then a couple movies, a couple television shows, and a large percentage of the games I played.
Final fantasy, Jak series, Ratchet & Clank, Zelda Ocarina of Time, resident evil, God of War, Uncharted, etc...there are so many franchises which are based around telling stories.....imo the entire history of gaming depends on compelling stories taking it from just run-based games and arcades to....characters and plot lines....it wasn't the graphics and power....graphics weren't very fancy when they started....text based games depended on stories and and experience partially under control of the player.
who wrote this....it's poorly thought out imo and doesn't seem to be attributing the proper recognition for good stories that have stemmed from games....it seems like the author is secretly just trying to push inane VR sandboxes on the world......like we need more of those....
and if they are being reductionist, they seem to have failed to suggest the inevitability of stories to be fractal in nature and to mirror common threads eternally.
finally, the author seems to completely miss the concept of emergent gameplay and how even though story may be scripted heavily or loosely - it is the variations in how the story plays out which emerge from the gameplay intermixed. while a walking simulator may not have much gameplay, it still mostly allows the user to control the experience and craft their own meaning behind it from between the lines of the delivered story such as trying to go back or reverse the flow events by resetting to a point in the past after failing a mission....not because the story needs it, but because you want to give the story its proper justice and fulfill on the motivations of the characters....