Story in Gaming
Conversation from the WAG Challenge thread (http://www.makegamessa.com/discussion/3122/wag-challenge-game-writing-challenge#latest) moved over here because we were going off topic.
@Nuclear_Mosquito
You're also right about adventure games having the pacing broken by the puzzles themselves , but the difference is that a puzzle game (take a famous example like Portal for instance) can establish itself within minutes, whereas an RPG (say Skyrim) takes hours.
(I actually wrote several paragraphs on this but I pushed the wrong hotkey by mistake and lost everything... I'm too lazy to rewrite it all so I may have missed out a few points I had originally made.)
@Nuclear_Mosquito
I agree that you could use a JRPG style for a tighter narrative focus, but when the average person thinks RPG they think big, they think character development driven, they think open ended. This is obviously not a necessity and putting such constraints on it would do the genre a disservice, but for the most part I think that using an RPG for a short tale is a mistake. With tight pacing and closed level design it could work, but one thing that I believe is present in all RPGs is choice, and choice will be severely limited with a tighter focus.We're going off topic a bit, so if we continue this discussion we might create a new thread for it. I believe a JRPG can convey a very tight story if your level design is good and you subtly guide the player. Another very story strong genre is Adventure games, but their puzzle solving can sometimes completely break your story pacing.
You're also right about adventure games having the pacing broken by the puzzles themselves , but the difference is that a puzzle game (take a famous example like Portal for instance) can establish itself within minutes, whereas an RPG (say Skyrim) takes hours.
(I actually wrote several paragraphs on this but I pushed the wrong hotkey by mistake and lost everything... I'm too lazy to rewrite it all so I may have missed out a few points I had originally made.)
Comments
I still feel like if you can make the RPG combat quick and fun (Something different than the turn based combat grind) you can maximize engagement in the game world, while leaving enough time for your player to make choices regarding his character and to allow him to experience the story. I've already seen RPGs made for 1hour stories, so I know it is possible. I'll try and post link to good ones after I've replayed them.
On a side note, what other genres do you think are good with storytelling? I immediately think of The Stanley Parable, but I have no Idea what genre that falls under.
I will say this, JRPGs are quite asset-intensive to create as the environments can sprawl and tilesets are hard work. Though of course again you can write it to be simple. To The Moon also had an amazing musical score - again, that can be simplified to by writing.
So, just saying, there are no restrictions to the format really, JRPG or not, FPS or not, heck even RTSs can have great writing (Starcraft 1 was good with that), but all it comes down is economy of time use....... Spend your time on the focus, which is the writing. Tell a story, construct an experience (Papers Please had great writing, but it's not a "story").
Anyway good luck there :)
Edit: OK I can't talk about storytelling in games and not mention these:
Nier: One of the most amazing stories in games. Obscure as hell, noone's ever played it, but so good. This is a "movie" on youtube of all cutscenes. It was that good that they made it. Watch just a bit, it's 4 hours+ total lol, and you probably won't "get it" from the get go, since it's one of those really insanely mindfucky JRPG stories, but I had to share. It was SO GOOD. Oh again, amazing score.
(Yeah the character design in this *was* ridiculously sexualised. There's a twist in it though, if you play the thing. But that's a completely different conversation)
Removing the turn based thing would definitely help with it, but in your intended RPG @Nuclear_Mosquito is the story conveyed through dialogue, exposition dump screens or the environmental design? Because it all really revolves around execution. Anything can be done, but not everything can be done well. Which is the issue.
I'm relatively new to the indie scene seeing as I only got a proper computer about 3 weeks ago, and so feel free to send a link with any RPGs that manage short runtimes to me. I'd be happy to check it out. I like being wrong and then learning from it. If I was just right all the time then I'd never improve and uh... I'm usually wrong about things seeing as I have a pesky human brain and all, ha ha.
I don't think that genre really matters, and my only problem with RPGs was the length thing. I've seen great tales told in every genre, and in fact the game with the best story (in my opinion) was in an RPG: Deus Ex (the original one with graphics that very much aged badly). But all the choice in an RPG makes it a lot harder to tell a clear story. Fantastic examples of storytelling would be games like Spec Ops: The Line (proves modern shooters can be emotionally powerful), The Darkness (only romantic relationship in a game that felt believable), The Unfinished Swan (gorgeous aesthetic that told a story better than any words ever could)... I could go on but I'd prefer to not bore everyone to death.
The Stanley Parable is a unique entry because it handles choice in a metafictional way that is never really seen. It defies genre itself and so I don't think I'd classify it as any genre... we need a genre for that genre-less genre.
Combat also isn't essential, but will still often be included just for the sake of including it. Personally I think Ico could've done without the irritating combat, and if I find someone to finally agree with me then I can die marginally happier. A lot of people of course won't play a game without combat seeing as attention spans are very subjective things in every entertainment industry.
I've never heard of this "Extra Credit" thing @Nuclear_Mosquito, but if they make more videos along similar lines I'll definitely go and check it out.
I believe the demo for Always Sometimes Monsters (made in RPG maker) fits that description.
What I'm really excited about is this thing Nitrogen posted: http://makegamessa.com/discussion/3133/a-dark-room-awesome-minimalist-survival-game
This could definitely be made into a more role playing game type experience. An I'd really LOVE to play something like this that put the story more front and center.
"A Dark Room" lasts a little longer than I thought it would. About 4 hours. The first 30 minutes are good and it gets increasingly more grindy as it goes on.
If you aren't aware of Sunless Sea you should DEFINITELY have a look at that. It's got a lot of narrative and a TON of lore (which is told in a very interesting way). Worth checking out even if you're only slightly interested in story telling in rogue-likes. (Though it becomes more like an RPG as it progresses, it's just when you don't know what you're doing that you die a lot).
I think a compelling 20 minute story could be told using a selection of the mechanics in Sunless Sea. Obviously making it a lot more streamlined to deliver a narrative within that timeframe.
But I'll definitely be checking these games out, and I think that I should probably start writing up a list because I've got some catching up to do, it seems.
- Use Narrative liberally,
- rely on your players to make a few assumptions based on common knowledge
- Make the story rewarding and not punishing.
- Only "force" the CORE story line on the player.
- Make the extra elaborated story/lore optional and irrelevant to game completion. (side quests, Books on shelves, Mini games)
Old Arcade games are masterpieces of presenting narrative and story through limited means.
Pac man, Golden Axe, Double dragon...
They used Narrative to kick start the action, and rewarded the player with unfolding story.
But lately it seems to me that there is an element of over sensitivity (to stereotypes often used in these arcade games) in society and this puts another obstacle in the process.
Video(story) as a reward
There was a time when VIDEO footage in a computer game was an incredibly rare and wonderful reward.
People would want to finish the game just so that they can get that chance to see the "ending video". You would only be able to see it by finishing the game, and as such a lot of people often kept their SAVE games from right before the ending.
Narrative alleviates the pressure for story. "A picture is worth a thousand words" - People should keep that in mind when designing content. And use it liberally to avoid causing TLDR responses in the player.
Story - Has two points of consideration... Complexity, Length.
Length is limited to the game time and video time combined...
Complexity is limited to how much information you can pump out.
Some games try to pump out too much by using text... Then the TLDR sensation kicks in, and a player will either give up the game, or he would skip over it and play on without knowing why he is doing what he's doing.
TLDR Also kicks in with excessive video. I call it the "cut scene attack" where the player is defenseless against the ambush of unwanted footage in the middle of their fun.
This TLDR effect kicked in HEAVILY for me when I tried to play Metal Gear Solid 4.
The game had so many drawn out cut scenes with dialogue that goes on forever...
I didn't want to skip it because I felt like I wanted to know the story behind the game...
But at the same time I grew frustrated and mimicked a "yapping" hand while rolling my eyes.
I never even bothered completing the game. It just lies there in the pile of games I'll never look at again.
Some people might like it, but can you imagine how bad it must be for somebody to NOT want to play a game because of too much "video"?
Except Indigo Prophecy/Farenheit. That was one entirely QTE game that I throughly loved.
I'm weird I guess :)
@Pierre Point 1 - I would have to disagree. It depends on the genre and it depends on the audience. If you're creating a story-centric adventure game, such as the new Telltale games that are popping out with increasing rapidity, then do not cut story off for the sake of gameplay. Sometimes a game can be a straight up interactive narrative, and it would be unfair to throw useless gameplay in there. Not everyone wants that. I know I don't, and even if I'm the minority on that I'm still not alone.
Point 2 - I completely agree. People too often spoon feed gamers nowadays with both instructions and story concepts, and Kojima is especially guilty of this seeing as the player realizes things about two hours before Kojima feels the need to then explain it. The imagination is a powerful thing, and ambiguity in story telling can be just as powerful a thing.
Point 3 - What about Dark Souls? Can something not be punishing as well as rewarding?
Point 4 - I mostly agree with this, but it may be an over-generalization. Not all games follow a clear cut "core story." A game may decide to feature branching stories that are not necessarily "core" but still serve the overall narrative. Superfluous story is obviously unnecessary, and so I agree that it should be optional, but if one looks at more established sectors of story, such as novels, it can be seen that additional and very much necessary characterization and world building can be shown through technically unnecessary sectors of the plot. Maybe a few snatches of dialogue or additional description of something in the world.
Point 5 - This pretty much relates to point 4.
I don't know if I agree with that one either. I think classifying them as masters of narrative is pushing it a bit. Sure, they had minimalism forced upon them but I don't think that this automatically classifies them as having good narratives. Maybe something like Metroid or Zelda... but Pac Man? All I remember out of Pac Man was eating a bunch of dots and then killing ghosts as a kind of petty revenge. Unless we were playing different versions, ha ha.
There's a kind of ignorance that I feel is building about gaming needing minimalistic storytelling, and I very much disagree. Minimalism can be done well but it isn't everything, and if every game I played was afraid of telling a story because it required lengthier cutscenes or something I may just stop playing. Although I do believe that narrative is not always a necessity, and sometimes even damages a game. Look at the "secret ending" for Hotline Miami. It took a simple story that was told through mechanics and tried to add more story... which was a mistake in my book.
Okay, I'm gonna stop now... my fingers are getting sore, ha ha.
That would actually be an interesting thing to check out. He went for the whole auteur thing so I don't think its entirely impossible that he penned every line. It's not that hard to write that much, you know. I doubt it surpasses 100 000 words and that ain't all too hard to do.
Add-on: I looked it up and the only other writer listed seems to be a bloke named Tomokazu Fukushima... details are kinda sparse as to what exactly he wrote though.
Usually games would feature huge amounts of people all contributing but there are a few exceptions, and I think that the overall narrative focus was entirely created by Kojima. Maybe with a few prods from Konami. It wasn't like they gave him an editor for ludicrous amounts of dialogue after all.
...I differentiate between narrative and Story. Sorry if I didn't make that clear... I loved Dark souls. When I talk about "Story" I refer mostly to video clips and other pieces of footage that 'tells' a compulsory(unavoidable) story... In this sense, Dark souls didn't punish me with story at all. The video footage was pleasant and rewarding (at least for me it was) and I wonder if I ever even used a skip button (or even if there is one.)
The game itself was punishing, but not the story telling. Yeah, ;/
Maybe I was a bit generous with the word "masterpiece" but please don't take my words so literally. I was referring of course to how they were "masterful" with their limited means... PAC MAN had those funny skits every four or five levels... That was their story telling. It was brief, amusing and rewarding. I praise them for that. Story should be rewarding and PAC MAN did it well. At least I think so. "Ignorance" huh? That seems a bit harsh. I respect your opinion that story and/or narrative should not necessarily be minimalist... I can certainly see that some people would prefer having more Story and less game.
Games writers I've met have made a big distinction between "narrative" and "story" and "writing". And I'm not always totally sure what they mean in different contexts.
The narrative of a game is everything that is related to the player, it includes the player moving his avatar around, all the events including dying and restarting, and all the voice acting and texts. All these and more can be used to tell narratives in the game. The progression in Tetris could be called a narrative. Dying repeatedly in Dark Souls is a narrative. There can be embedded narratives (like cutscenes) and emergent ones (like the actions the player takes). Whereas "story" means the the tale that all these narrative tools end up telling. But is often used in game writing to mean the story that the writer intended (rather than meaning the story where the player gave up half way through for example). We don't often talk about things like the glitches in Skyrim as being part of the Skyrim's story.
This distinction (which I might have wrong) is kind of important to understand each other. @Pierre suggests to "Use Narrative liberally", which you disagree with. But if the two of you mean something different when you say "narrative" then it's hard to disagree or agree.
By the definition of narrative I've supplied I'd probably say the more narrative the better. That means that the events in the game form an interesting tale. Games with high narrative density, like Paper's Please, really do stand out by managing to add narrative weight to what would be a routine and forgettable action in a lesser game.
What I mean to say is that having a lot of narrative doesn't mean having a lot of writing or dialogue or cutscenes. Designing the actions in a game, even the small ones, to tell a narrative rather than be meaningless is generally a good thing.
But I can't say if that's the way @Pierre was using "narrative".
What are your thoughts on this distinction I'm making?
Also... You should consider trying "PAPERS PLEASE" if you haven't already played it. I'd argue that indie games have been at the forefront of story in games, with AAA games mostly lagging far behind. Not all indie games obviously, most indie games are still quite arcady while most AAA games have some form of story included, but definitely some of the most interesting story telling in games recently have been in indie games.
A list of indie games I think have excelled at story telling (looking at this list now makes me realize I definitely have a taste for grim stories):
#1 Papers Please. It'll take you about 4 hours or so. It's really interesting from a ludo-narrative perspective.
#2 Sunless Sea. If you like lovecraftian fiction play this.
#3 80 days. If you have a smart phone get this, it's a branching adventure in a steam punk, and less colonial, imagining of Jules Vern's 80 days around the world.
#4 This War of Mine.
#5 Dear Esther. It's about 1 hour long. I personally didn't like it that much, but it's an important game in terms of story telling, and I think it has the potential to inspire you.
That's off the top of my head. Each of these games is very different in the way it tells a story, but I think that all of these stories are great. There's a ton of ideas between them that you might be able to use to inform how you think about crafting a great game story.
Indeed... I'm of a very similar mind regarding Narrative as you explained it...
I think of it as ALL the game content that supports the "story" by painting a picture...
The music, the mood, the crucified zombies on the walls of hades... the character's personality and habits.
The body language of the bad guys. Heck even the backdrop or skybox is narrative to me.
So when I say people should use it liberally, I refer to going all out with the idea that a "picture is worth a thousand words".. It alleviates pressure on story telling.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky
Firstly, my distinction between "writing," "narrative" and "story" is fairly simple and kinda falls in line with the concepts that are taught in literary theory (I won't go overly detail-y because that bores most people). The story is the overarching tale, the plot which includes all the things that occur in a logical or chronological story path. So this would include everything to do with the actual story that is told and does not include the more abstract concepts that can be used, such as music, environment design, et cetera. The story only entails the plot, characters and the way in which these things fit together.
The writing refers only to the actual writing. It has nothing to do with plot or narrative. Something badly written can still be a fantastic story. Look at old Metal Gear for that one. The dialogue is overused and there is far too much fluff for everything. This is bad writing, but it is not a bad story. However, storytelling is related to writing. You need the writing to create a flowing work, and so the writing is obviously crucial. Not every narrative has writing though, and so writing is not a necessity. There are games and films with no "writing" per se. So it does become a little harder to define "writing" the more in depth you go. Is writing the actual words you see? Or is writing a reflection of the actions you see before you? Tough question, and it's also one that has no answer.
The narrative is everything however. The narrative includes everything. It takes the story, the writing, the environment, the music, et cetera. So generally we say that a game has a "bad" story when we refer to the actual story itself. The overarching tale that is woven. Because so many things go into the narrative that it can be difficult to completely screw it up. You'd have to have everyone screwing up to pull that off. So when I say "narrative" I mean the whole package. When I say "story" I mean the plot. When I say "writing" I mean the words I see that have been put together by a person who wants to convey something.
The biggest issue in this comes in regards to semantics though. None of these terms are set in stone, and that is the problem. The same problem that surrounds the word "art," because what can you classify as art? Everything? Nothing? Few things?
As I write all of this I also wonder whether I'm actually making myself clear or whether I'm being confusing. I think I'm being confusing... I'll try resolving some confusion if you have any... or at least I'll try. This stuff all gets kinda technical in a very short amount of time.
@Pierre I had thought you meant not to make the storyline punishing. So ignore that one! Ignorance may be harsh, yes. But for lack of a better word I used it. I find it irritating when people point towards old games or indie games as if they're the only ones that have done it right is all. Minimalism is often enforced in those, and so I've seen people ignoring amazing narrative experiences like Spec Ops: The Line, which trumps any game made before Deus Ex in narrative (my opinion of course), just because it was a big budget AAA game. Games don't have to be minimalistic and low budget to be good. There can be amazing games with amazing stories by big publishers.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky The ugly monster that is semantics rears its head and so yes, this is true. We may be (and are it seems) using these words to mean different things. But the problem is that these words aren't actually defined. In fact, the word "aesthetic" has been disputed for over a hundred years by scholars, and so has every other word relating to art in any way.
Played (and loved!), wanna play, never heard of, desperately want!
Okay... gotta catch my breath... did I leave anything out? God, I hope not... (I didn't read over this before posting like I usually do, so please forgive forgotten stuff or possible typos. Just takin' a break is all.)
For reference, I think the way I defined "narrative" is the way game writers define it (the difference between narrative and story was one of the first things Andy Walsh brought up when he did his games writing workshops in Cape Town and Johannesburg, he felt the distinction was important, and I hope I'm not mucking it up).
Although it's a super minor semantic difference, the way you use narrative seems to be synonymous with what I'd term "experience". As in "The experience is everything however. The experience includes everything. It takes the story, the writing, the environment, the music, et cetera." I'd definitely argue that there are parts of games that do not contribute to the narrative. And parts of games (particularly the rules) that can conflict with the narrative, so it's somewhat useful not considering the narrative to encompass everything.
The narrative probably includes everything in a novel or film (am I right?).
Some game theorists, like Raph Koster, tend to think of narrative as being entirely divorced from the actions the player takes. Though I think this kind of constrained thinking is what causes so much sameness in the story telling of AAA games: http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-game-mechanic/
But like you say, semantics :) Those are my semantics and I think we understand each other (even if we use words slightly differently). I don't expect you to adopt my semantics, especially as you've come from a literature background and no doubt have found useful ways to think about writing using your current set.
Ooooh! I added a #5 to that list. DAMN! I forgot Spec Ops the Line. I absolutely loved that game.
One last thing. From a game theory perspective, a lot of the way you talk about writing has a kind of authorial authority tone to it. It's almost always better to talk and think about games from a perspective of the players' experience. It makes it much easier to think about, and anticipate, things like ludo-narrative dissonance when you assume that the writer is not defining the plot, but is rather producing content that allows for plots to unfold when engaged with by the player.
(I'm not sure if that last paragraph made much sense, but I'm trying to make the point that the author is not in perfect control of the narrative the way she is in film or novels, and this changes how we talk about the plot/story/narrative of a game)
Indeed it does.
I am currently studying literary theory so... yeah. I come from a literature background. I do understand your semantics as it were. It's just irritating that such a thing gets in the way at all. People can't really talk on the same level because of inherent differences in meaning and understanding.
My entire purpose in gaming, well aside from loving games since I was a wee lad and all that jazz, is to basically use said academic qualification to analyse games as one would analyse novels or films (and some like to argue that you can't analyse games like you analyse books or movies but those people don't seem to realize that you don't analyse books or movies in the same way at all. A new method of analyzing has to be made for every new medium so I always just sigh whenever I hear someone whining about how you can't analyse blah blah blah... end of tangent, ha ha). I intend on fighting for gaming as an artform, and this is why I get rather pedantic about the story and all. I get really into it. I don't really mean to intrude on others' beliefs about it; I just get really worked up when it enters my field of "expertise" (I use inverted commas because I've only got a year under my belt so far, and so I'm not an expert at anything yet).
I take every second I can to yammer on about that damn game. Very few games made me feel like a monster... actually none have. But that thing was intense. And if, per chance, you happen to be interested. I'm actually writing a close reading analysis of the game as an academic study to one day (hopefully) be peer reviewed. It's almost like a personal thesis of sorts.
Well actually in literary theory the writer is not entirely in control. They're in control for a while, but once it's been released for anyone else to see it no longer belongs to them. There's a thing called the intentional fallacy in which a creator's opinions are meaningless. Everything created belongs to everyone other than the creator. A nice way to think about art. Although even that has flaws. But so does everything in theoretical work.
So I think that releasing something has to be made with the player in mind, and I am a player so I think that I would think about what I'd want as a player most before making the game. Don't worry. I'm not some prose writer that decided to take an interest in gaming just because. I'm actually intensely passionate about it and have gotten into quite a few arguments over it too.
EDIT ADD-ON: I somehow didn't see this paragraph. I've never heard of this bloke but I find that belief to be very constrained, I agree there. That is a flat out stupid viewpoint. To state that narrative is divorced is to go against some of the best choice driven games out there, such as Fallout, The Walking Dead and Spec Ops: The Line! Not to mention story games with no element of choice like the old LucasArts adventure games. This is archaic thinking that goes back to seventies and eighties games perhaps, where there was little to no story. In which case I may agree. But not in the modern age.
I think a good argument can be made for the meaning of a game being found in the gamut of player experiences, rather than in the experience of any single player even. Though I think using the rules as the substance of authorial intent is the approach that a lot of reviewers take. Like: "What does it mean in Hotline Miami that the game scores you after each battle?" and "What does it mean that brutally executing an enemy in Spec Ops the Line provides you with bonus ammo?"
In any case, I guess I subscribe to a kind of post-facto storytelling as being the definitive source of a game's narrative. I think the best games will produce lots of different narrative's, allowing for players to have agency in building their own narrative experiences. The narrative that the author intended I find dull by comparison.
(But I guess that's because I'm primarily a game designer, and designing systems that produce lots of narratives is an interesting challenge, and I value player agency very highly as a player).
I'm curious about your analysis of Spec Ops the Line.
You know what I think is super weird about Spec Ops the Line, is that previous Spec Ops games were military shooters played very straight. It's a brilliant about turn for the eleventh installment in a fading franchise. Although given the rest of my post is about Intentional Fallacy I feel it necessary to mention that the conditions in which the game was made don't affect my interpretation of its meaning :) #7 Hotline Miami. This game requires a lot of skill. And the game is very focused on the gameplay. BUT it does some interesting things with narrative, breaking down the barrier between player and protagonist, and even contradicting itself. AND it is about feeling like a monster. A fun game to analyse if there ever was one.
I'm just saddened by the fact that Spec Ops: The Line bombed... the games that deserve it most don't make as much money as the CODs and the Assassin's Creeds. Much like every other medium of course... *sigh*
EDIT ADD-ON: I knew someone would mention that. Didn't make me feel like a monster at all. The analysis only works up to a point though. I made a note earlier of it actually: P.S. I've played way too much of this game. It's one of the few games that's held me beyond the initial completion. I never keep playing a game once I finish it! Never! Yet this thing held me... only time I've ever cared about high scores.
I'm also saddened that Spec Ops the Line didn't succeed financially. I'd really love more games in that vein from Yager. And I think that a follow-up would benefit from the love that Spec Ops the Line generated, but perhaps still not enough to justify another AAA first person shooter budget.
Just wanted to add this, that I had edited into my previous post rather late: #7 Hotline Miami. This game requires a lot of skill. And the game is very focused on the gameplay. BUT it does some interesting things with narrative, breaking down the barrier between player and protagonist, and even contradicting itself. AND it is about feeling like a monster. A fun game to analyse if there ever was one. Takes about 4 hours to complete if you have the reflexes the game demands (and an infinite amount of time if it is too hard).
On the negative side, it sort of says "The previous ending didn't matter". It takes a satisfying ending and guts it.
But what I like about it is that it introduces an element that breaks down the forth wall. This adds more context to the words that runs through the game "Do you like hurting people". Which now I think is implicitly directed at the player herself.
Which is a fun thought I think :) In any case, I think Hotline Miami is a fun puzzle to think about.
In truth, I never felt like a monster either. BUT I found it surprising that the game all but calls me a monster, me and not the protagonist.
By contrast I hated the scoring. I felt it undermined the game's meaning.
The secret ending for Hotline Miami kinda made it into a Cold War type thing... I think you may be thinking of the ending with the biker. Which isn't the secret ending. That was the ending I loved. It was an ending that basically said that the entire reason for you killing people was pointless. You were doing it for no reason. Which was fantastic!
The secret ending said it was all a sinister shadow group that made you do it... rather disappointing really.
After that one scene in Spec Ops: The Line (I won't say it for spoiler reasons) I really felt like a horrible person. I felt like a straight up monster and I wish that more games hit me with such a powerful emotional response. My most recent one was finally getting into Dark Souls... and I've never felt my heart racing while facing a boss before.
I've been gaming so long that the wonder many feel at many games has left me. It takes something truly powerful to get through to me, and that's what I want out of a game.
Hotline Miami does do a very good job of it, and less desensitized people may have felt like a monster after it.
EDIT ADD-ON:... again I felt that it added to the narrative personally. You were already doing it for something pointless... what's more pointless than a point system?
Agreed then that the Biker ending is great :)
Pippin Barr's thoughts about the scoring in Hotline Miami somewhat mirror my own:
http://www.unwinnable.com/2013/11/19/the-jostle-letters/#.Uo0fiyg5RO4
Obviously his Jostle Bastard isn't a substitute for the experience of Hotline Miami, but it's an interesting piece of art nonetheless.
I wonder how I would have responded to Hotline Miami had I not been playing such violent games my whole life. Possibly I would have felt a monster.
(By the way, you get said secret ending by finding all the puzzle pieces throughout the game. So unless you done did that you're safe.)
Don't know if I'm allowed to use proper swear words on this forum so I'll just say: yes... yes it was...
I was hardly phased by Manhunt 2 when I was thirteen... Hotline Miami is pretty damn tame in comparison now that I'm an adult.
I'll check out that Pippin Barr thing now then...
Also, all this talk of narrative and story in games has got me thinking about the indie tabletop RPG scene, and some of the projects that have come out of it, which are broadly and quite loosely described as 'story games'. It's kind of interesting that in video games we still seem to be having a debate about systems/mechanics vs story/narrative, when there's a ton of tabletop designers who are working on systems whose sole purpose is to help players produce a story together at the table. I know that video games and tabletop games are different mediums, and that the constraints, affordances and technologies are different, but it strikes me as odd that video games cribbed a lot of D&D's mechanical math and adventure module design, and then just stopped there, when there's so much interesting stuff that's been done since 1974 that would serve video games really well if we could figure out how to implement it.
I do know about it and, although I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, it is on my list of references and so I'm definitely going to be checking it out.
I don't plan on publishing it as an undergrad. I'm only currently working on the general concept and raking in a list of references at the moment. I'm building what will eventually be published, but I only plan on even attempting to actually publish it once I have a qualification. This is still years down the road of course, as I stated previously: It's kinda word for word there though.
Gotta give you a big ole thanks for this one, ha ha. Yeah, I decided to try working towards it shortly after starting my studies in fact. My qualification is years away of course, and so you won't be seeing any academic publications on Spec Ops by me (and the many other games I intend on analyzing) for quite a while... gimme like four years and you'll be seeing at least one thesis per year or two.
I have been wanting to get into tabletop games for years, but I just haven't had the chance (I'm actually going to be starting DnD for the first time soon, which is very exciting for me). I have dabbled a bit and wrote about 300 pages for one tabletop idea (my "collaborator" wrote about 3) and about 150 or so for another (my collaborator did bugger all), and so I need to get into it properly and do it either alone or with people who aren't such lazy bastards.
I'd be glad to. The one may not be a tabletop anymore seeing as the combat system became more and more mathematical in nature and everything pretty much revolved around that, and so it may just one day become a video game RPG rather than a tabletop. That one was straight up fantasy and actually took place in my universe (I'm a very prolific but still very much unpublished writer and I have a pretty big universe that I'm constantly expanding).
The second is a sci-fi that takes place thousands of years following a nuclear war. There are multiple races that have evolved over time (they can also only communicate and work together if they speak the same language and working together is kinda necessary in the wastelands that they explore; hence why I'm currently playing with the name Lingua Franca) and all the enemies are in some or other way result of mutations over the centuries and centuries of fallout. The combat is more akin to a turn based strategy game on a grid though, and environment plays a massive role in the encounters.
I need to get back to work on them at some point, ha ha. Feel free to drop me a message if you're at all interested. Anyone competent is welcome, ha ha... I've had enough of lazy people...
Just in case. Lingua franca is a term for a linking language that can be used to allow people to communicate in a language different to their own language. For instance English is the lingua franca of finance and trade in the world.