This is a new focus we have. The concepts of dedication and regular updates have always been a reoccurring one in my posts. This has come up with all of us – both Josh and I have managed to start an amazing number of posts either on paper or on machine and never finish them. Trevor has joined us in our lazy trends with admirable speed. Now we’ve come up with a working plan to thwart our lethargic ways; we’re going to be strict professionals in the finest sense.
By that dramatic proclamation I mean we're going to harrass the hell out of one another. It's no longer going to be one of those post-whenever-you-want hobby things, no, now it will be a business. A business with no customers, supporters, income and a product we may be embarrassed to show people, but one nonetheless. Given our current model this means there will be a post every week - even if we need to kill some one to get it done. Possibly two people, though that may be pushing it. There aren't many of us.
What we hope to cover still entails whatever the hell we want, so things wont change much on the output end. Though I might finally find something else to begin my posts with than false attempts at assuring myself I'll post more frequently.
Anywho, to kick things off; today we're going to have Josh and Trevor consider the best way to convey a story inside of a game. It's an issue we're argued about for a while - namely whether interactivity is a helping hand in scenes conveying story or simply a hinderance. Now since we only have enough time to let them both have a single go at convincing you that they're the best shit to ever hit this site, we're have them roll for the right to post last. The tension is palpable. Possibly less so for people reading this rather than being present.
Trevor wins. Thus, Josh posts first, here's his words of wisdom;
Josh
Well, this came as a bit of a surprise. Not only am I unprepared in my postifying having run on coffee for the past two weeks sleeping only to make sure I don't die or whatever. I'm also not exactly sure what to make of the wording for the topic - luckily enough I know what he means and I shall give examples!
Firstly, I must say that interactivity in a general sense does not hinder storytelling, heck this is an interactive medium that I'm talking about and interactivity is the foundation of its existence. Or at least the differentiating factor.
Reducing the idea that being able to interact would only hinder the storytelling capability is frankly silly. What is being referred to and that I rage against are things like the cut scenes in Half-Life, Portal (heck many shooters) or the first Assassin's Creed. Notice how I call them cut scenes - because that is what they are except they give you full control during them to do nothing. Why is it that while Gordon Freeman is being talked to can I shoot the person talking to him? I don't know about anyone else but this is immersion breaking as all get out. However; I've been told both by the internet and the two fools that post with me that I'm doing it wrong.
This is the worst kind of authorial control that I can think of, Valve has consciously chosen to give full freedom to the player, but doing what you want is wrong? I can't think of another way to describe it because we know Freeman didn't shoot the toqued black-guy telling him to go through a door because they made him invincible and the freedom has absolutely no impact. Or perhaps Freeman jumped around while being spoken to like an ass - this entertains me absolutely, but takes away impact from the conversation.
I don't mean to sound like Roger Ebert, but I think authorial control is incredibly important. Now what the player does in game play is still under control of Director as we are always given choices, but why did Valve make this one choice wrong. Also in my opinion the alternative of standing and having the NPC monologue at you is so boring as to not be worth doing. This goes for Assassin's Creed (I walk like a maniac or if given the chance - stab someone) heck even in those damn scenes in any game where you control where you look for some reason I just constantly wave my head around.
The interactivity while characters are imparting exposition I personally feel detracts from the information or the scene. It's giving me the game play without giving me any of the fun and in most of these games my actions don't build on the world or the character. I suppose that the idea is that Gordon Freeman is ME so what I do builds his character except, as I said, he obviously didn't do the things I did in cut scene or game play for that matter. I am sure Alex Vance hated my Freeman since he shot her... often and when possible let her kill all of the enemies or absorb bullets with her corpse.
CLICK HERE FOR AN EXAMPLE OF MY SUMMARY!
Are you still paying attention to my argument or are you playing Mario?
Honoustly a well written and not overly verbose text-box is one of my favourite ways to present plot, characterisation etc in video games having the ability to stab people during the text would not improve it. If you think of it in that way I think you can compare and see why I just think it's distracting.
TREVOR
Hmm. Josh's points are better than anticipated. That being said, Josh, you're doing it wrong.
One of the best, possibly the very best way to create a story and world that feels like a cohesive whole that has been implemented by developers thus far is to put the player in the character's shoes. This creates an almost different kind of immersion, one that I suspect some cannot "get into" as much as others. You are not an audience, not an observer - a participant. Being a huge fan of this approach, I feel I have to counter Josh on the "boredom and pointlessness" of npc monologuing. When I've braved what I need to to reach that npc, to feel as if there has not been a "curtain drop", so to speak, that I am here and am now being spoken to by someone I've fought to catch up with, the world comes into it's own. I'm not watching something, I'm immersed in something rather than sitting in a chair.
One of the best examples of this I can muster is the Tentacle introduction in 1998's Half-Life. After coming through a heavy silo door into a rocket-test viewing chamber and being greeted by a panicking scientist, something crashes through a window five feet ahead of you, knocks the scientist to the ground, and pulls him out into the blast chamber. Perhaps your first instinct was to slam your back into the metal bulkhead and pray you go unnoticed. Maybe you dove towards the creature in an attempt to save your doomed buddy.
A cut scene could have conveyed the arrival of this enemy. Perhaps the camera would do a little pan, music would swell and and a radical camera angle would show the monster burst through the glass. But then it would have been a mechanical "look here, a new game element to learn!" moment, not a fluid moment where something just about ended your adventure, something just violated what you thought you knew about the world you are in. Something about the world interacting with you, rather than showing you things then letting you interact, conveys realism in a very powerful sense.
And back to me. I'm purposefully staying out of this argument largely for matters of balance, but I can't say it wasn't an entertaining experiment. A new one should be coming every week and with any luck I'll get to be more than a spokesperson next time. Hope it was as interesting for all of you (two people) as it was for us, 'til next week.
