Why do people watch movies when books exist? They're different mediums for delivering a story.
I saw this thread and assumed you were talking about actual walking simulators like Firewatch or Gone Home, ones that don't really have any gameplay mechanics besides walking and interacting with objects. But from your comments you seem to be taking issue with games like God of War, The Last of Us and The Witcher which makes me think you're a little misguided as to what those games really are. Those games have a story but that's not the sole reason they're popular. They're all groundbreaking titles in their own right from a technical perspective, they just happen to have good stories because that makes them resonate with players even more.
It's like how a movie with a bunch great fight scenes and no story isn't going to resonate with audiences in the same way as a movie with great fight scenes and a story to tie it all together. It's an important part of the immersive experience for a lot of people.
This is an honest question, not a troll: what makes The Last of Us groundbreaking from a technical perspective? I played it and loved the story, but the gameplay was utterly boring to me. I got through the game entirely because I wanted to see the conclusion of the story and when the HBO show came out I was thrilled because it meant I wouldn't have to play a game I hated to see the story of TLoU 2.
It's been years, but my recollection is the game was entirely on rails, mostly walking and talking with infrequent bursts of quicktime events and clunky shooting. What was groundbreaking about it?
What was groundbreaking was the character and world building. Joel and Ellie feel like real people, with interesting backstories and relatable emotions. In the PS3 era, it felt ahead of its time.
... which are not technical elements, but writing, thus the question stands.
Well, a movie and a book are quite different. I think OP’s point, right or wrong, is that a story-based game with minimal or no gameplay is very close to exactly what a movie is.
The older I get the less I care about endless gameplay loops and carrot on a stick mechanics. A good story keeps me invested and caring about what happens on the screen. Games like God of War, Last of us, Witcher are gold standards when it comes to this. They are not movies on rails, they are engaging and interactive experiences like you can't find anywhere else and for this I will always love these types of games more than any other medium.
Edit: OP literally mentioned these games as examples lower down in the thread.
I feel like your examples aren't quite what OP was referring to. Those games have pretty great gameplay
According to OP, those are exactly the games they referred to. Which does beg more questions
OK OP is a weirdo, my bad
i think they might mean more something along the lines of telltale games. and there's definitely been more than one mediocre story driven adventure with bad gameplay, we just don't remember them as easily. also, a lot of people really don't get the appeal of role playing. so games like baldur's gate might come off as "old ass gameplay on top of a long winded boring story" to the someone who also doesn't like of turn based combat. I could even see a somewhat valid complaint if they were mad about QuickTime events seeming to be more common than ever. I thought those would be a relic of the past 10 years ago... looking at you spider man! every super hero game really. why are these still a thing? who likes them?
No OP literally replied lower down in the thread using those examples
damn yeah that's a pretty lame take.
I think Telltale and those like it would be even worse examples than God Of War and etcetera. These games add a new dimension to the experience by providing ways for the viewer/player to influence the story. The only thing I could conflate it with would be CYOA books, which obviously are a conpletely different medium.
Those games have pretty great gameplay
God of War is basically a button masher. I remember liking The Last of Us, but it was new when I played it, so I don't remember much of the gameplay. Can't speak to the Witcher
I really like the characters and voice/motion acting in Baldur’s Gate 3. Magnificently rendered. Very well written. But the story is totally on rails. You can nod your head at an NPC and they will say “Anyway, let’s get on with things…” or you can tell that NPC to eat shit and die and they will say “Hey no need to be vulgar. Anyway let’s get on with things…”
There are some branches and choices in the game but overall it feels pretty prepared. I enjoy hunting for fun Astarion reactions to random things, but the game frequently offers fake choices, and the consequences of choices are usually 1. the story continues as written or 2. the story thread just ends 3. oh no combat or 4. some really weak alternative thread that you know isn’t the main one and they threw in just to pad.
Games are not superior medium for telling stories. All the good parts are the ones taken from movies, and the interactivity is still weak. When a game has GPT-level improvisation then I’ll be impressed but that will just be a sandbox anyway.
"Why do people have preferences?"
Why do people like cake, I just don't get it. Why not just eat cookies if you want something sweet
As I scroll this thread I’m really wondering how much people still read books. When people say they like story games, is that because that’s the only source of stories in their lives, and they’re saying “of course I like stories?” Do they have any great stories to compare with, from books?
The responses make a great deal more sense to me if I assume no one reads anymore. I speak as an avid reader and gamer.
I'd like to think I'm an avid reader (and gamer) as well. I view both highly and both have their strengths.
SPOILERS
Video games shine in terms of player interactivity. I genuinely felt visceral, strong emotions by simply having to press the square button 3 times in TLOU2. Bashing someone's head in is the only way to proceed. The music gets more distorted, the screen itself becomes blurry -- I felt as Ellie felt. Distraught, upset, angry, and everything else in between.
I felt the acceptance that I have been honing in my countless loops of Outer Wilds when I finally pulled the system's "life support" out. Flying through space one last time while the music echoes this final journey really made me feel things.
I'd summarise the edge video games have as "This is what you (the player) have done. You have agency. Deal with the consequences of your own actions, or reap the benefits."
A huge disclaimer, I know that the story is already established in the writers room. I'm not saying that games allow you to craft your own story. I'm saying that they allow you to craft your own experience.
Of course, great writers can accomplish the same. I love Atwood's writing in particular, and she does conjure up wonderful emotions. But you always feel for someone or something. You don't have any agency in what happens, so emotions tend to be dampened as well. That's my personal opinion anyway, feel free to disregard it!
I think you’re totally right about placing the “reader” in a position of agency and how that gives the story greater impact.
I also think it really fences game stories in, too, because people would object to being certain kinds of characters, or making certain kinds of choices.
Either you have to give the gamer palatable choices, or they feel dissociated from their character, like “well fuck okay I’ll do it but this is clearly not what I would rather do,” and that greater impact is undermined.
Some games excel at finding the tricky balance point where you aren’t quite sure what you would do and really have to think and consider the consequences because you’re invested in both directions. But you can only cram so many such moments into a plot before it becomes obvious.
Yeap fully agreed here as well. I do think the medium itself is shackled by its own chains, but my goodness when you find a game that does it well -- the feeling is astounding.
I guess it depends on the player as well. I adored how TLOU2 handled its story but most people might disagree.
Anyway, I've come to the realisation that I've mostly been reading non fiction lately! Maybe that's why I'm so fiction starved.
If you've any books to recommend I'd love to hear them!
This is the weirdest comments section I've ever seen. Stories are why I play every single one of my favourite games. I just finished Control and it's absolutely phenomenal. Yes it plays and looks great, but the story and lore is why it's so good.
< The Board thanks/precipitates you for your contribution/factotum >
Have you played the DLCs? The AWE one is great.
Yep, it was great. I picked it back up after not finishing it so did the DLCs to stretch it out as I was near the end. Finished The Foundation yesterday, not as good as the main game or AWE. I've downloaded Alan Wake Remastered now, so that's next.
Well it is a game/story from Sam lake, for me that means good. I hope he has a few more games in him.
Please take this as a genuine question and not an insult or challenge: do you read books? I’m curious if games are just the way you consume stories in your life, or if you also read stories but game stories are different in some way that matters to you.
I listen to an audiobook every day, watch TV and movies regularly.
an interactive medium offers unique avenues for storytelling not available to something more static like a film or a novel.
think things like environmental storytelling or branching narratives.
I like visual novels because of how I can change the story with different choices. This isn't much gameplay but it is still interactive and a lot easier to do with a computer than with manually flipping between pages in a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
Now, kinetic novels, where you do not change anything significant in the story with your choices, those I agree with OP's sentiment. Some people like them and that's totally fine, but I personally don't see the appeal. Maybe it's getting exposure to stories from people who had an idea but not a high enough budget for a movie?
Damn straight, beefcat
Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type
branching narratives
Lots of "plot only" games I see start to eschew even that and have tons of fake choices lmao, making it even movie-er.
Yea dude this is often such a false promise, im sure some games pull it off but often its like one choice that makes a drastic difference in outcome.many times it's not like a nuanced calculation of the decisions you make over an entire playthrough
What games are we even talking about? Like Gone Home or something?
The perception of choice still matters. A movie can't ask you to choose anything, not even a false choice. So if that's important, a movie simply can't do it.
For me personally, video games are interactive stories. I love movies and TV shows, and being able to have some level of control over the action is an amazing experience for me!
I'm also not competitive and don't care so much about scores, rankings, or online multiplayer vs. games. Just give me an intriguing plot and let me be the protagonist in it. I'll play that game for hours on end.
I don't like games that are essentially movies with a few interactive scenes between clips, though. It has to be really interesting if I'm going to sit through a game like that. I'm here to play, not to watch. The only series that's been interesting enough for me to deal with hundreds of cutscenes dispersed every few minutes throughout is the Metal Gear Solid series.
I realize I don't speak for the whole gaming community, but this is my personal view.
On PC - Steam alone, 12000 games were released in 2023.
OP, your statement is vague and generic. Please show the math.
In a game, you're the protagonist. In a movie, someone else is. Two different experiences.
Because all you name below are AAA games where everyone wants to flex their budget. It's like asking "why do big budget movies focus so often on explosions and action, instead of stories? What happened to things like Shawshank Redemption?"
As soon as you step away from big AAA games that lean heavily on cinematic influence, you get much more gameplay-focused content. I could name a million of them.
But it's a spectrum, not an on/off switch. There's a huge array of different types of games with different combinations of action, cinematics, dialog, quick-time events, racing, flying, rhythm-matching, puzzles, and on and on and on
Tell us what you're actually looking for and we could give suggestions :)
Don't tell us what you don't want. Tell us what interests you
These days? Remember Dragon’s Lair?
Dungeon quest. Oregon trail. Materia Magica. And a dozen other MUDs
Even if a game technically has great gameplay, it can start to feel pointless if the story is trash.
Involvement. Because no matter how perfect the gameplay is, if you use your brain occaisonally, you should ask yourself WHY? Why am i doing it.
If you play since the 80‘s, you hit, flew, drove, shot, build and puzzled almost everything.
Stories consist of motivations. Otherwise there is nothing of consequence going on.
But cheer up. There are many more people like you, Stanley. Push the button. Keep pushing it.
Almost everything in this world stresses me out.
I want to feel involved in something while going at my own pace. Video games give me to power to finally be in control. That's why I like them so much. Movies force you along.
These days, as in...Now?
Today?
This is the era of boomer shooters...
We haven't had a new stand alone Uncharted game for...7 years.
I wasn't aware of this, what games are you referring to?
FF7 remake def feels like this to me. Short play, huge cut scene. Repeat.
The Last of Us, The Walking Dead game and other Telltale games, Uncharted, The Witcher, God of War, and I guess it's just a general trend I feel. A lot of games seem to focus on story-driven elements more than gameplay, with an obsession around graphics and story more than anything else (see what Mohamed Enieb says on Twitter, for example).
And I guess this is somewhat separate, but... why don't trailers show any gameplay, just cinematic stuff? I don't play games for the visuals or story personally, I just want good gameplay. I find it increasingly hard to find games I actually enjoy.
What happened to the likes of Ratchet & Clank, Jak series, Lost Planet, or the Halo series? Those are games with good gameplay, and I couldn't care less about the stories (or graphics).
Have you even played TLOU? And the Witcher? Really? It’s pretty much ALL gameplay!
I honestly don’t think you’ve ever played any of these games beyond the opening scenes.
Meh, too much story for me. I know there's some gameplay, but it's a lot of walking around while just observing stuff happening, too much for my liking.
You clearly have no idea what playing these games is like. You should've tried them before forming your opinion.
Ok but a branching story is far from the same as a tv show
If you prefer point-and-click shooters or FIFA or whatever that's fine, but it's not like good RPGs are any closer to cinematic games/walking simulators than them - RPGs & walking simulators share a story, whereas point-and-click shooters & walking simulators share repetitiveness and little to no replay value
For the latter there is an argument that they're more of a sport than a media form, but why not just go to the gym or join a sports team? It follows the same logic as why not watch a movie instead of playing a game with a story
ROFL… okay.
Ok so what the hell games do you like then?
What are you talking about? Ratchet and Clank had as much story as God of War, they were both released for the same console, and both of them had a new game released recently. If you don't care about story Halo and CoD are very similar, and there's a new CoD every year, why not play that?
Plus there are plenty of games that got released recently and are focused on mechanics, have absolutely awesome gameplay and are not "story" heavy e.g. Dead Cells, Spider-Man, Stellaris, Two point hospital, Factorio, Rimworld just out of the top of my head.
I'm really trying to understand your argument, but really can't:
You mention games without gameplay and list as examples games that were acclaimed by their gameplay as well as storytelling
You say you don't care about graphics but list games that were at the top of the graphical capabilities of their time
You talk about a recent trend and provide examples from 10 or more years ago
I'm not sure you know what you like in a game, I think it's quite possible you enjoyed those games because you were in a different mental situation when you played them, and now nothing quite stands up to them because you changed and are not able to enjoy things as much. I'm saying this because objectively The last of Us is a masterpiece in every single aspect, not only one of the best stories I've seen in a while, but also a lot of great innovative mechanics and a gameplay that fits just perfectly, even if you skipped every Cutscene in the game you would still be playing an absolutely awesome game, it might not be your thing because you don't like stealth, or scare easily, but to claim it's a game without anything but story is more proof that you either haven't played it or are trolling.
Ratchet & Clank and the Jak series are platformers which have fallen out of favor with most companies because they don't sell well anymore. You could try A Hat In Time or the Mario games (or even the latest 3D Sonic game, for that matter) if that's what you are looking for. As far as Lost Planet and the Halo series, I wouldn't exactly call them sparkling examples of gameplay. Lost Planet was a pretty OK third person shooter, which you can still find a fair amount of out there (see: Ghost Recon, et al.), and Halo has Halo Infinite, the MCC, or you can go the route of Call of Duty, DOOM, Dying Light, or one of the many arena shooters that have come out in recent times, just search for "Boomer Shooters."
As far as your commentary on trailers, it's often because visuals sell, and being able to script a cinematic to hit on every dopamine receptor is something that advertisers have been perfecting for generations. They don't show gameplay because most of the time the gameplay is the same gameplay that you've seen before. If you want innovation, you have to go indie for the most part, and they don't have trailers that often.
Try Celeste. There’s a great storyline but you can ignore it if you want. The gameplay speaks for itself
Most of those games still have actual gameplay mechanics, unlike, say, Detroit Become Human which is a better fit for this category.
Or all those walking sims that were all the rage a couple of years back.
I would argue that all games have a story. Some have a scripted narrative--which, in the medium of video games, gives the player their own immersive role in the story--while other games give you the tools to create your own story as you play. You face conflicts and use your abilities and the resources around you to overcome them, ideally resulting in a satisfying progression throughout your playtime.
Both are cool for different reasons.
Tetris has story?
It’s a terrible tale of oppression if you read between the blocks.
I asked ChatGPT to give me a narrative backstory of Tetris relating to oppression. You're welcome:
In the realm of Tetris, each distinctive piece represents a fighter in a symbolic battle against oppression, embodying resilience and unity:
L-Block (Lenny): Lenny is the ingenious rebel, always finding clever ways to subvert the oppressor's plans. His ability to fit into tight spots and support others symbolizes the fight against constraints and the power of innovative thinking.
J-Block (Jolene): Jolene represents the underestimated resistance. Often overlooked, her strength lies in her subtle yet impactful actions. She symbolizes the quiet but fierce fight against oppression, proving that every action, no matter how small, counts.
I-Block (Ivan): Ivan stands tall as the beacon of hope and solidarity. He represents the unwavering spirit of the oppressed, a reminder that standing firm and united can disrupt the oppressor's designs.
O-Block (Olivia): Olivia embodies unity and cooperation. Her simple form represents the power of solidarity, showing how coming together can create an unbreakable force against tyranny.
S-Block (Sam): Sam is the symbol of unconventional resistance. His unique approach represents the innovative strategies used to outmaneuver oppressors, celebrating the creativity and adaptability of those fighting for freedom.
Z-Block (Zara): Zara, like Sam, challenges the status quo. She embodies the courage to be different and the strength found in diversity, essential in the struggle against a monolithic oppressor.
T-Block (Theo): Theo is the mastermind of the resistance, his versatile nature representing the strategic planning needed to overcome oppression. He signifies the importance of adaptability and foresight in the fight for liberation.
In this narrative of Tetris, the game becomes a metaphor for resistance against oppression. Each piece, with its unique qualities, plays a crucial role in the larger strategy of defying and dismantling oppressive structures. Their world is a constantly shifting battlefield where unity, creativity, and resilience are key to surviving and triumphing over tyranny.
Ivan 100% Tetrises himself to save the others that have yet to fall. It's just the kind of block he is.
Sure. The premise is that blocks are falling and can't be allowed to reach a certain height. There is drama in knowing that, no matter what, it will eventually reach that height. You're given the tools to fend off the inevitable for as long as you can. There's conflict, resolution, and the plot details are determined both by the decisions you make and the order in which the game delivers the blocks to you. You are the protagonist, the computer is the antagonist. There's a beginning, middle, and end to every game. It's as reductive as stories get, but it's a story.
I, I like the way you think.
I stand corrected. :)
The story of Tetris is the story of the entire history of Russia.
I think I disagree that all games have a story because there are a lot of games that are closer to sports than interactive stories. Mostly multiplayer games like fps's and rocket League, but also a lot of single player driving games like mudrunner or any of the rally games.
Most analogue games fall in the sports category too imo. There's no story to poker, and you really shouldn't overthink the lore of chess.
I can go at my own pace with a game. I pause the story and the rest of the world is still there to interact with.
Having to click from time to time keeps me awake.
For visual novels with no input besides the occasional choice, I personally like to enjoy the music and story without having to worry about skill issues or in some cases, it being hard to get past a certain section that prevents me from progressing. And a couple things most visual novels have that movies don't would be the ability to go at your own pace and choices that alter the dialogue and the overall ending.
Though, that's just my take on it from my perspective from someone who likes both no-input visual novel games and normal games.
There's lots of kinds of games.
You want chess? There's chess. Like, no other game has better software than chess. Lichess is maybe the cleanest goddamn game experience that anyone's ever written in code. There's no bullshit whatsoever. You can just run it and play chess, with the computer or with a human. It's just a game.
The best Go game I can point you to is KGS and it's not as good as Lichess. Which is sad, because Go is awesome.
You want to play a run-around-and-whack-stuff-with-a-sword game? Yeah, buy yourself a Nintendo and play the latest Zelda game. They're good at that. Especially if you have a strong stomach and don't get all pukey when your guy goes flying in the air.
Or you want to play a Dungeons & Dragons game with factions and fights and gnolls and hot drow ladies? Yeah, you go install Steam and play Baldur's Gate 3. It's okay if you didn't play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Nobody else did either.
I'd like to see more games with replay value. We need a new PC FPS
I love games that are story driven. Although if it does not have adequate interactivity, like meaningful choices and actions, then I would rather have it as a movie.
I wanted something retro cyberpunk RPG recently and installed VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action, only to discover that there is no action and barely no game. It's just endless nexting through a narrative that smells of teenage bedsheets.
Apparently it's massively popular.
I don't get it at all. For me it's like reading wet fanfic while double tapping the space bar and perform the most tedious implementation of what can barely be considered a puzzle or memory game.
Edit: don't get me wrong. I enjoy slow narrative driven indie games with barely any interactive parts, as long the narrative is interesting and the interaction is still barely as opposed to virtually none.
>buys a Visual novel
>gets a book with moving images
>:(
I get your point, but some people do really just want to relax with a choose your own adventure book with some cool art and catchy music, no need to act surprised when people have different tastes than yours!
Yep, it's my mistake. I assumed it would have some gameplay elements as suggested by the "action" in the title, or control of the direction of narrative, something along what interactive stories used to be in my mind.
As I said, I personally don't understand the appeal of it. I'd rather read the story as a book or even a graphic novel because for me tapping the spacebar and dragging icons does not add anything. It's plain annoying both as game and distracting as a reading experience.
Oh, and obviously I didn't expect it to be about horny tech furries. It was simply not for me.
In reading this thread, I get the sense that some people don't (or can't) separate gameplay and story. Saying, "this is a great game" to me has nothing to do with the story; the way a game plays can exist entirely outside a story. The two can work together well and create a fantastic experience, but "game" seems like it ought to refer to the thing you do since, you know, you're playing it.
My personal favorite example of this is Outer Wilds. The thing you played was a platformer puzzle game and it was executed very well. The story drove the gameplay perfectly and was a fantastic mystery you solved as you played. As an experience, it was about perfect to me; the gameplay was fun and the story made everything you did meaningful.
I loved the story of TLoU and was thrilled when HBO adapted it. Honestly, it's hard to imagine anyone enjoying the thing TLoU had you do separately from the story it was telling. It was basically "walk here, press X" most of the time with some brief interludes of clunky shooting and quicktime events.
I get the gameplay making the story more immersive, but there's no reason the gameplay shouldn't be judged on its own merit separately from the story.
A Way Out is a perfect example of this, it's literally a co-op netflix show you have 0 control over except a choice between two endings (which of you wins a gunfight at the end)
Just watch the Let’s Play if you want the movie 😀
I occasionally enjoy them when I'm between games, and I know I will not have the time or energy to start a new, more involved game.
I see these kind of games as a different medium to tell a story and, if done well, the controls can be a part of the storytelling. The Last of Us is a great example of using controls for this.
As to why not whatch a movie? I cannot sit in front of a screen passively anymore. If I'm with my partner, we can sit together and watch something, otherwise, I want to interact with the screen, even if it's only by walking.
Don't worry OP. My observation of people who eventually stopped playing those games and instead just watch the story on YouTube validates your experience. Some games are worth less than their let's plays.
Basically Playstation exclusives. They are heavily marketed and hyped up, they make good stories, but there isnt any gameplay other than walking through some foliage ridden areas (foliage spam is the 'game looks good' tactic) and maybe the odd enemy to shoot.
I agree they would be better suited as tv shows/movies than games.
Do people want it? Or does the gaming industry believes that people want it?
I'll give you an example: Minecraft. It has no story whatsoever, unless you count as "story" those lame excuses for lore (like the ender dragon). And yet it's the best-selling video game ever.
Same deal with Pokémon main series games. The series started out strongly gameplay-driven, to become gradually strongly story-driven. Guess which are the best selling gens? Gen 1 (Red/Blue/Green/Yellow) and Gen 2 (Gold/Silver/Crystal), that are far less story-driven than the rest! (And if you look at player ranks, Heart Gold and Soul Silver are often near the top. Gen 2 gameplay and story, Gen 4 visuals.)
So... really, I don't think that people want gameplay-less games. It's just that the industry is shoving it down their throats nonstop. And the ones who do want a story will look for it elsewhere - like visual novels, movies (as you said) or the good old books.
Both.
Games that are usually criticized by this, also tend to be games that sell really well. Think Sony exclusives like Uncharted, TLoU, etc.
Some of the most beloved games by the communities are also story heavy, like Bioshock, Mass Effect, System Shock, etc. These games I mentioned have passable gameplay even when they were released, case in point, whenever you talk with someone about these games, they won't talk about the gameplay, they will talk about the twists, the characters, etc.
Then there are games that are the antithesis to this post: interactive movies and visual novels. Quantic Dream's games (detroit become human, heavy rain, etc) despite all their faults, sold well. Telltalle's put their foot in the industry with the first season of The Walking Dead, and they would still be in business today if it wasn't for their one trick pony game design and biting more than they could chew. Visual novels tend to be in the grey area and some people argue they aren't games at all, but some do feature gameplay, and people don't play those for the gameplay I can promise you that.
I do share the opinion that many publishers & studios in the gaming industry have the wrong idea that they need to be like the movie industry and have cinematic games. They don't. But the demand for those types of games exist too
That's a good counterpoint.
Taking what you said into account: perhaps the industry is generalising too much a diverse market, and leaving unsatisfied players who drift too much away from said generalisation.
Do people want it? Or does the gaming industry believes that people want it?
Seeing as how those types of games are some of the most hyped and sell the most copies: people want them.
While simultaneously, games that actually have compelling gameplay with next to no story also sell like crazy when people realize they do want that too. But they're not generally hyped up before they come out, nor do I see a lot of people asking for those types of games very often whenever the question of "what kind of game do you want" comes up.
Why do people watch movies when books exist? They're different mediums for delivering a story.
I saw this thread and assumed you were talking about actual walking simulators like Firewatch or Gone Home, ones that don't really have any gameplay mechanics besides walking and interacting with objects. But from your comments you seem to be taking issue with games like God of War, The Last of Us and The Witcher which makes me think you're a little misguided as to what those games really are. Those games have a story but that's not the sole reason they're popular. They're all groundbreaking titles in their own right from a technical perspective, they just happen to have good stories because that makes them resonate with players even more.
It's like how a movie with a bunch great fight scenes and no story isn't going to resonate with audiences in the same way as a movie with great fight scenes and a story to tie it all together. It's an important part of the immersive experience for a lot of people.
This is an honest question, not a troll: what makes The Last of Us groundbreaking from a technical perspective? I played it and loved the story, but the gameplay was utterly boring to me. I got through the game entirely because I wanted to see the conclusion of the story and when the HBO show came out I was thrilled because it meant I wouldn't have to play a game I hated to see the story of TLoU 2.
It's been years, but my recollection is the game was entirely on rails, mostly walking and talking with infrequent bursts of quicktime events and clunky shooting. What was groundbreaking about it?
What was groundbreaking was the character and world building. Joel and Ellie feel like real people, with interesting backstories and relatable emotions. In the PS3 era, it felt ahead of its time.
... which are not technical elements, but writing, thus the question stands.
Well, a movie and a book are quite different. I think OP’s point, right or wrong, is that a story-based game with minimal or no gameplay is very close to exactly what a movie is.
The older I get the less I care about endless gameplay loops and carrot on a stick mechanics. A good story keeps me invested and caring about what happens on the screen. Games like God of War, Last of us, Witcher are gold standards when it comes to this. They are not movies on rails, they are engaging and interactive experiences like you can't find anywhere else and for this I will always love these types of games more than any other medium.
Edit: OP literally mentioned these games as examples lower down in the thread.
I feel like your examples aren't quite what OP was referring to. Those games have pretty great gameplay
According to OP, those are exactly the games they referred to. Which does beg more questions
OK OP is a weirdo, my bad
i think they might mean more something along the lines of telltale games. and there's definitely been more than one mediocre story driven adventure with bad gameplay, we just don't remember them as easily. also, a lot of people really don't get the appeal of role playing. so games like baldur's gate might come off as "old ass gameplay on top of a long winded boring story" to the someone who also doesn't like of turn based combat. I could even see a somewhat valid complaint if they were mad about QuickTime events seeming to be more common than ever. I thought those would be a relic of the past 10 years ago... looking at you spider man! every super hero game really. why are these still a thing? who likes them?
No OP literally replied lower down in the thread using those examples
damn yeah that's a pretty lame take.
I think Telltale and those like it would be even worse examples than God Of War and etcetera. These games add a new dimension to the experience by providing ways for the viewer/player to influence the story. The only thing I could conflate it with would be CYOA books, which obviously are a conpletely different medium.
God of War is basically a button masher. I remember liking The Last of Us, but it was new when I played it, so I don't remember much of the gameplay. Can't speak to the Witcher
I really like the characters and voice/motion acting in Baldur’s Gate 3. Magnificently rendered. Very well written. But the story is totally on rails. You can nod your head at an NPC and they will say “Anyway, let’s get on with things…” or you can tell that NPC to eat shit and die and they will say “Hey no need to be vulgar. Anyway let’s get on with things…”
There are some branches and choices in the game but overall it feels pretty prepared. I enjoy hunting for fun Astarion reactions to random things, but the game frequently offers fake choices, and the consequences of choices are usually 1. the story continues as written or 2. the story thread just ends 3. oh no combat or 4. some really weak alternative thread that you know isn’t the main one and they threw in just to pad.
Games are not superior medium for telling stories. All the good parts are the ones taken from movies, and the interactivity is still weak. When a game has GPT-level improvisation then I’ll be impressed but that will just be a sandbox anyway.
"Why do people have preferences?"
Why do people like cake, I just don't get it. Why not just eat cookies if you want something sweet
As I scroll this thread I’m really wondering how much people still read books. When people say they like story games, is that because that’s the only source of stories in their lives, and they’re saying “of course I like stories?” Do they have any great stories to compare with, from books?
The responses make a great deal more sense to me if I assume no one reads anymore. I speak as an avid reader and gamer.
I'd like to think I'm an avid reader (and gamer) as well. I view both highly and both have their strengths.
SPOILERS
Video games shine in terms of player interactivity. I genuinely felt visceral, strong emotions by simply having to press the square button 3 times in TLOU2. Bashing someone's head in is the only way to proceed. The music gets more distorted, the screen itself becomes blurry -- I felt as Ellie felt. Distraught, upset, angry, and everything else in between.
I felt the acceptance that I have been honing in my countless loops of Outer Wilds when I finally pulled the system's "life support" out. Flying through space one last time while the music echoes this final journey really made me feel things.
I'd summarise the edge video games have as "This is what you (the player) have done. You have agency. Deal with the consequences of your own actions, or reap the benefits."
A huge disclaimer, I know that the story is already established in the writers room. I'm not saying that games allow you to craft your own story. I'm saying that they allow you to craft your own experience.
Of course, great writers can accomplish the same. I love Atwood's writing in particular, and she does conjure up wonderful emotions. But you always feel for someone or something. You don't have any agency in what happens, so emotions tend to be dampened as well. That's my personal opinion anyway, feel free to disregard it!
I think you’re totally right about placing the “reader” in a position of agency and how that gives the story greater impact.
I also think it really fences game stories in, too, because people would object to being certain kinds of characters, or making certain kinds of choices.
Either you have to give the gamer palatable choices, or they feel dissociated from their character, like “well fuck okay I’ll do it but this is clearly not what I would rather do,” and that greater impact is undermined.
Some games excel at finding the tricky balance point where you aren’t quite sure what you would do and really have to think and consider the consequences because you’re invested in both directions. But you can only cram so many such moments into a plot before it becomes obvious.
Yeap fully agreed here as well. I do think the medium itself is shackled by its own chains, but my goodness when you find a game that does it well -- the feeling is astounding.
I guess it depends on the player as well. I adored how TLOU2 handled its story but most people might disagree.
Anyway, I've come to the realisation that I've mostly been reading non fiction lately! Maybe that's why I'm so fiction starved.
If you've any books to recommend I'd love to hear them!
This is the weirdest comments section I've ever seen. Stories are why I play every single one of my favourite games. I just finished Control and it's absolutely phenomenal. Yes it plays and looks great, but the story and lore is why it's so good.
< The Board thanks/precipitates you for your contribution/factotum >
Have you played the DLCs? The AWE one is great.
Yep, it was great. I picked it back up after not finishing it so did the DLCs to stretch it out as I was near the end. Finished The Foundation yesterday, not as good as the main game or AWE. I've downloaded Alan Wake Remastered now, so that's next.
Well it is a game/story from Sam lake, for me that means good. I hope he has a few more games in him.
Please take this as a genuine question and not an insult or challenge: do you read books? I’m curious if games are just the way you consume stories in your life, or if you also read stories but game stories are different in some way that matters to you.
I listen to an audiobook every day, watch TV and movies regularly.
an interactive medium offers unique avenues for storytelling not available to something more static like a film or a novel.
think things like environmental storytelling or branching narratives.
I like visual novels because of how I can change the story with different choices. This isn't much gameplay but it is still interactive and a lot easier to do with a computer than with manually flipping between pages in a Choose Your Own Adventure book.
Now, kinetic novels, where you do not change anything significant in the story with your choices, those I agree with OP's sentiment. Some people like them and that's totally fine, but I personally don't see the appeal. Maybe it's getting exposure to stories from people who had an idea but not a high enough budget for a movie?
Damn straight, beefcat
Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type
Lots of "plot only" games I see start to eschew even that and have tons of fake choices lmao, making it even movie-er.
Yea dude this is often such a false promise, im sure some games pull it off but often its like one choice that makes a drastic difference in outcome.many times it's not like a nuanced calculation of the decisions you make over an entire playthrough
What games are we even talking about? Like Gone Home or something?
The perception of choice still matters. A movie can't ask you to choose anything, not even a false choice. So if that's important, a movie simply can't do it.
For me personally, video games are interactive stories. I love movies and TV shows, and being able to have some level of control over the action is an amazing experience for me!
I'm also not competitive and don't care so much about scores, rankings, or online multiplayer vs. games. Just give me an intriguing plot and let me be the protagonist in it. I'll play that game for hours on end.
I don't like games that are essentially movies with a few interactive scenes between clips, though. It has to be really interesting if I'm going to sit through a game like that. I'm here to play, not to watch. The only series that's been interesting enough for me to deal with hundreds of cutscenes dispersed every few minutes throughout is the Metal Gear Solid series.
I realize I don't speak for the whole gaming community, but this is my personal view.
On PC - Steam alone, 12000 games were released in 2023.
OP, your statement is vague and generic. Please show the math.
In a game, you're the protagonist. In a movie, someone else is. Two different experiences.
Because all you name below are AAA games where everyone wants to flex their budget. It's like asking "why do big budget movies focus so often on explosions and action, instead of stories? What happened to things like Shawshank Redemption?"
As soon as you step away from big AAA games that lean heavily on cinematic influence, you get much more gameplay-focused content. I could name a million of them.
But it's a spectrum, not an on/off switch. There's a huge array of different types of games with different combinations of action, cinematics, dialog, quick-time events, racing, flying, rhythm-matching, puzzles, and on and on and on
Tell us what you're actually looking for and we could give suggestions :)
Don't tell us what you don't want. Tell us what interests you
These days? Remember Dragon’s Lair?
Dungeon quest. Oregon trail. Materia Magica. And a dozen other MUDs
Even if a game technically has great gameplay, it can start to feel pointless if the story is trash.
Involvement. Because no matter how perfect the gameplay is, if you use your brain occaisonally, you should ask yourself WHY? Why am i doing it.
If you play since the 80‘s, you hit, flew, drove, shot, build and puzzled almost everything.
Stories consist of motivations. Otherwise there is nothing of consequence going on. But cheer up. There are many more people like you, Stanley. Push the button. Keep pushing it.
Almost everything in this world stresses me out.
I want to feel involved in something while going at my own pace. Video games give me to power to finally be in control. That's why I like them so much. Movies force you along.
These days, as in...Now?
Today?
This is the era of boomer shooters...
We haven't had a new stand alone Uncharted game for...7 years.
I wasn't aware of this, what games are you referring to?
FF7 remake def feels like this to me. Short play, huge cut scene. Repeat.
The Last of Us, The Walking Dead game and other Telltale games, Uncharted, The Witcher, God of War, and I guess it's just a general trend I feel. A lot of games seem to focus on story-driven elements more than gameplay, with an obsession around graphics and story more than anything else (see what Mohamed Enieb says on Twitter, for example).
And I guess this is somewhat separate, but... why don't trailers show any gameplay, just cinematic stuff? I don't play games for the visuals or story personally, I just want good gameplay. I find it increasingly hard to find games I actually enjoy.
What happened to the likes of Ratchet & Clank, Jak series, Lost Planet, or the Halo series? Those are games with good gameplay, and I couldn't care less about the stories (or graphics).
Have you even played TLOU? And the Witcher? Really? It’s pretty much ALL gameplay!
I honestly don’t think you’ve ever played any of these games beyond the opening scenes.
Meh, too much story for me. I know there's some gameplay, but it's a lot of walking around while just observing stuff happening, too much for my liking.
You clearly have no idea what playing these games is like. You should've tried them before forming your opinion.
Ok but a branching story is far from the same as a tv show
If you prefer point-and-click shooters or FIFA or whatever that's fine, but it's not like good RPGs are any closer to cinematic games/walking simulators than them - RPGs & walking simulators share a story, whereas point-and-click shooters & walking simulators share repetitiveness and little to no replay value
For the latter there is an argument that they're more of a sport than a media form, but why not just go to the gym or join a sports team? It follows the same logic as why not watch a movie instead of playing a game with a story
ROFL… okay.
Ok so what the hell games do you like then?
What are you talking about? Ratchet and Clank had as much story as God of War, they were both released for the same console, and both of them had a new game released recently. If you don't care about story Halo and CoD are very similar, and there's a new CoD every year, why not play that?
Plus there are plenty of games that got released recently and are focused on mechanics, have absolutely awesome gameplay and are not "story" heavy e.g. Dead Cells, Spider-Man, Stellaris, Two point hospital, Factorio, Rimworld just out of the top of my head.
I'm really trying to understand your argument, but really can't:
You mention games without gameplay and list as examples games that were acclaimed by their gameplay as well as storytelling
You say you don't care about graphics but list games that were at the top of the graphical capabilities of their time
You talk about a recent trend and provide examples from 10 or more years ago
I'm not sure you know what you like in a game, I think it's quite possible you enjoyed those games because you were in a different mental situation when you played them, and now nothing quite stands up to them because you changed and are not able to enjoy things as much. I'm saying this because objectively The last of Us is a masterpiece in every single aspect, not only one of the best stories I've seen in a while, but also a lot of great innovative mechanics and a gameplay that fits just perfectly, even if you skipped every Cutscene in the game you would still be playing an absolutely awesome game, it might not be your thing because you don't like stealth, or scare easily, but to claim it's a game without anything but story is more proof that you either haven't played it or are trolling.
Ratchet & Clank and the Jak series are platformers which have fallen out of favor with most companies because they don't sell well anymore. You could try A Hat In Time or the Mario games (or even the latest 3D Sonic game, for that matter) if that's what you are looking for. As far as Lost Planet and the Halo series, I wouldn't exactly call them sparkling examples of gameplay. Lost Planet was a pretty OK third person shooter, which you can still find a fair amount of out there (see: Ghost Recon, et al.), and Halo has Halo Infinite, the MCC, or you can go the route of Call of Duty, DOOM, Dying Light, or one of the many arena shooters that have come out in recent times, just search for "Boomer Shooters."
As far as your commentary on trailers, it's often because visuals sell, and being able to script a cinematic to hit on every dopamine receptor is something that advertisers have been perfecting for generations. They don't show gameplay because most of the time the gameplay is the same gameplay that you've seen before. If you want innovation, you have to go indie for the most part, and they don't have trailers that often.
Try Celeste. There’s a great storyline but you can ignore it if you want. The gameplay speaks for itself
Most of those games still have actual gameplay mechanics, unlike, say, Detroit Become Human which is a better fit for this category.
Or all those walking sims that were all the rage a couple of years back.
Movies aren't interactive.
Tell that to Netflix.
That was so good
I would argue that all games have a story. Some have a scripted narrative--which, in the medium of video games, gives the player their own immersive role in the story--while other games give you the tools to create your own story as you play. You face conflicts and use your abilities and the resources around you to overcome them, ideally resulting in a satisfying progression throughout your playtime.
Both are cool for different reasons.
Tetris has story?
It’s a terrible tale of oppression if you read between the blocks.
I asked ChatGPT to give me a narrative backstory of Tetris relating to oppression. You're welcome:
In the realm of Tetris, each distinctive piece represents a fighter in a symbolic battle against oppression, embodying resilience and unity:
L-Block (Lenny): Lenny is the ingenious rebel, always finding clever ways to subvert the oppressor's plans. His ability to fit into tight spots and support others symbolizes the fight against constraints and the power of innovative thinking.
J-Block (Jolene): Jolene represents the underestimated resistance. Often overlooked, her strength lies in her subtle yet impactful actions. She symbolizes the quiet but fierce fight against oppression, proving that every action, no matter how small, counts.
I-Block (Ivan): Ivan stands tall as the beacon of hope and solidarity. He represents the unwavering spirit of the oppressed, a reminder that standing firm and united can disrupt the oppressor's designs.
O-Block (Olivia): Olivia embodies unity and cooperation. Her simple form represents the power of solidarity, showing how coming together can create an unbreakable force against tyranny.
S-Block (Sam): Sam is the symbol of unconventional resistance. His unique approach represents the innovative strategies used to outmaneuver oppressors, celebrating the creativity and adaptability of those fighting for freedom.
Z-Block (Zara): Zara, like Sam, challenges the status quo. She embodies the courage to be different and the strength found in diversity, essential in the struggle against a monolithic oppressor.
T-Block (Theo): Theo is the mastermind of the resistance, his versatile nature representing the strategic planning needed to overcome oppression. He signifies the importance of adaptability and foresight in the fight for liberation.
In this narrative of Tetris, the game becomes a metaphor for resistance against oppression. Each piece, with its unique qualities, plays a crucial role in the larger strategy of defying and dismantling oppressive structures. Their world is a constantly shifting battlefield where unity, creativity, and resilience are key to surviving and triumphing over tyranny.
Ivan 100% Tetrises himself to save the others that have yet to fall. It's just the kind of block he is.
Sure. The premise is that blocks are falling and can't be allowed to reach a certain height. There is drama in knowing that, no matter what, it will eventually reach that height. You're given the tools to fend off the inevitable for as long as you can. There's conflict, resolution, and the plot details are determined both by the decisions you make and the order in which the game delivers the blocks to you. You are the protagonist, the computer is the antagonist. There's a beginning, middle, and end to every game. It's as reductive as stories get, but it's a story.
I, I like the way you think.
I stand corrected. :)
The story of Tetris is the story of the entire history of Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8
Enjoy :)
I think I disagree that all games have a story because there are a lot of games that are closer to sports than interactive stories. Mostly multiplayer games like fps's and rocket League, but also a lot of single player driving games like mudrunner or any of the rally games.
Most analogue games fall in the sports category too imo. There's no story to poker, and you really shouldn't overthink the lore of chess.
I can go at my own pace with a game. I pause the story and the rest of the world is still there to interact with.
Having to click from time to time keeps me awake.
For visual novels with no input besides the occasional choice, I personally like to enjoy the music and story without having to worry about skill issues or in some cases, it being hard to get past a certain section that prevents me from progressing. And a couple things most visual novels have that movies don't would be the ability to go at your own pace and choices that alter the dialogue and the overall ending.
Though, that's just my take on it from my perspective from someone who likes both no-input visual novel games and normal games.
There's lots of kinds of games.
You want chess? There's chess. Like, no other game has better software than chess. Lichess is maybe the cleanest goddamn game experience that anyone's ever written in code. There's no bullshit whatsoever. You can just run it and play chess, with the computer or with a human. It's just a game.
The best Go game I can point you to is KGS and it's not as good as Lichess. Which is sad, because Go is awesome.
You want to play a run-around-and-whack-stuff-with-a-sword game? Yeah, buy yourself a Nintendo and play the latest Zelda game. They're good at that. Especially if you have a strong stomach and don't get all pukey when your guy goes flying in the air.
Or you want to play a Dungeons & Dragons game with factions and fights and gnolls and hot drow ladies? Yeah, you go install Steam and play Baldur's Gate 3. It's okay if you didn't play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Nobody else did either.
I'd like to see more games with replay value. We need a new PC FPS
I love games that are story driven. Although if it does not have adequate interactivity, like meaningful choices and actions, then I would rather have it as a movie.
I wanted something retro cyberpunk RPG recently and installed VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action, only to discover that there is no action and barely no game. It's just endless nexting through a narrative that smells of teenage bedsheets.
Apparently it's massively popular.
I don't get it at all. For me it's like reading wet fanfic while double tapping the space bar and perform the most tedious implementation of what can barely be considered a puzzle or memory game.
Edit: don't get me wrong. I enjoy slow narrative driven indie games with barely any interactive parts, as long the narrative is interesting and the interaction is still barely as opposed to virtually none.
>buys a Visual novel
>gets a book with moving images
>:(
I get your point, but some people do really just want to relax with a choose your own adventure book with some cool art and catchy music, no need to act surprised when people have different tastes than yours!
Yep, it's my mistake. I assumed it would have some gameplay elements as suggested by the "action" in the title, or control of the direction of narrative, something along what interactive stories used to be in my mind.
As I said, I personally don't understand the appeal of it. I'd rather read the story as a book or even a graphic novel because for me tapping the spacebar and dragging icons does not add anything. It's plain annoying both as game and distracting as a reading experience.
Oh, and obviously I didn't expect it to be about horny tech furries. It was simply not for me.
Was there a trailer?
The action is the drink mixing minigame.
And what wild action it is.
In reading this thread, I get the sense that some people don't (or can't) separate gameplay and story. Saying, "this is a great game" to me has nothing to do with the story; the way a game plays can exist entirely outside a story. The two can work together well and create a fantastic experience, but "game" seems like it ought to refer to the thing you do since, you know, you're playing it.
My personal favorite example of this is Outer Wilds. The thing you played was a platformer puzzle game and it was executed very well. The story drove the gameplay perfectly and was a fantastic mystery you solved as you played. As an experience, it was about perfect to me; the gameplay was fun and the story made everything you did meaningful.
I loved the story of TLoU and was thrilled when HBO adapted it. Honestly, it's hard to imagine anyone enjoying the thing TLoU had you do separately from the story it was telling. It was basically "walk here, press X" most of the time with some brief interludes of clunky shooting and quicktime events.
I get the gameplay making the story more immersive, but there's no reason the gameplay shouldn't be judged on its own merit separately from the story.
A Way Out is a perfect example of this, it's literally a co-op netflix show you have 0 control over except a choice between two endings (which of you wins a gunfight at the end)
Just watch the Let’s Play if you want the movie 😀
I occasionally enjoy them when I'm between games, and I know I will not have the time or energy to start a new, more involved game.
I see these kind of games as a different medium to tell a story and, if done well, the controls can be a part of the storytelling. The Last of Us is a great example of using controls for this.
As to why not whatch a movie? I cannot sit in front of a screen passively anymore. If I'm with my partner, we can sit together and watch something, otherwise, I want to interact with the screen, even if it's only by walking.
Don't worry OP. My observation of people who eventually stopped playing those games and instead just watch the story on YouTube validates your experience. Some games are worth less than their let's plays.
Basically Playstation exclusives. They are heavily marketed and hyped up, they make good stories, but there isnt any gameplay other than walking through some foliage ridden areas (foliage spam is the 'game looks good' tactic) and maybe the odd enemy to shoot.
I agree they would be better suited as tv shows/movies than games.
Do people want it? Or does the gaming industry believes that people want it?
I'll give you an example: Minecraft. It has no story whatsoever, unless you count as "story" those lame excuses for lore (like the ender dragon). And yet it's the best-selling video game ever.
Same deal with Pokémon main series games. The series started out strongly gameplay-driven, to become gradually strongly story-driven. Guess which are the best selling gens? Gen 1 (Red/Blue/Green/Yellow) and Gen 2 (Gold/Silver/Crystal), that are far less story-driven than the rest! (And if you look at player ranks, Heart Gold and Soul Silver are often near the top. Gen 2 gameplay and story, Gen 4 visuals.)
So... really, I don't think that people want gameplay-less games. It's just that the industry is shoving it down their throats nonstop. And the ones who do want a story will look for it elsewhere - like visual novels, movies (as you said) or the good old books.
Both.
Games that are usually criticized by this, also tend to be games that sell really well. Think Sony exclusives like Uncharted, TLoU, etc.
Some of the most beloved games by the communities are also story heavy, like Bioshock, Mass Effect, System Shock, etc. These games I mentioned have passable gameplay even when they were released, case in point, whenever you talk with someone about these games, they won't talk about the gameplay, they will talk about the twists, the characters, etc.
Then there are games that are the antithesis to this post: interactive movies and visual novels. Quantic Dream's games (detroit become human, heavy rain, etc) despite all their faults, sold well. Telltalle's put their foot in the industry with the first season of The Walking Dead, and they would still be in business today if it wasn't for their one trick pony game design and biting more than they could chew. Visual novels tend to be in the grey area and some people argue they aren't games at all, but some do feature gameplay, and people don't play those for the gameplay I can promise you that.
I do share the opinion that many publishers & studios in the gaming industry have the wrong idea that they need to be like the movie industry and have cinematic games. They don't. But the demand for those types of games exist too
That's a good counterpoint.
Taking what you said into account: perhaps the industry is generalising too much a diverse market, and leaving unsatisfied players who drift too much away from said generalisation.
Seeing as how those types of games are some of the most hyped and sell the most copies: people want them.
While simultaneously, games that actually have compelling gameplay with next to no story also sell like crazy when people realize they do want that too. But they're not generally hyped up before they come out, nor do I see a lot of people asking for those types of games very often whenever the question of "what kind of game do you want" comes up.