GDC 2014

[Cheylus]

It's a bit weird seeing people dismiss plot from games in the Witcher forums. The irony.

[...]

Please believe in my good faith, I'm not trying to be provocative, I'd rather be understood.
As I said earlier, I have nothing against plots. I don't "dismiss" plots in games. Like I said, plots interest me as much as texture quality in a video game, and I wouldn't puke on better textures. Like the article (even if I don't agree with everything), I'm saying plots are overrated in video games (...like good textures).

To clarify a bit -- what I would qualify as plots:
- There's a zombie outbreak, you're caught in it and will meet new people on your journey
- You're a monster slayer who needs to hunt down an assassin and save a sorceress
- You need to find a way out of a dungeon or an island full of demons
- The Joker has stolen a chemical device and you're Batman
- Nazis are coming back and you're here to put an end to their cruel experiments
Narration/storytelling (the way the plot is told in game and how the player can influence it), characters interactions, immersion, interactivity, player's skills or morality...: by using those tools characteristic of games cleverly, you can make any of those generic story shines.
Or you can use literary (acts) or cinematographic devices (cutscenes) in your games which are not, in my opinion, the most interesting and innovative.

In terms of story, The Witcher has nothing a good book or a good movie wouldn't have. TW is born from books after all, and it shows. I enjoy TW because it has high quality almost everywhere; but I'm not idolizing it. I don't think it achieves much as a video game except for those very high quality standards.

As a reader and a cinephile, I do surely enjoy a good video game story, that's absolutely not the issue.
As a gamer I'm more interested in what defines games out of other media or art forms, i.e. interactivity, immersion, a distinctive storytelling and rhythm, etc.

 

[Blothulfur]

Least I expect from a game is a plot that makes somes kind of fucking sense, if a writer can't do that task then he's failed at his profession in my eye, sure you can just play for the gameplay if it's good enough: Volgarr the Viking and Severance spring to mind there, but if you want to tell a story then make the effort to make sure it's at least bloody coherent, and simple games like the above do that by making it just very simple.

If you're making a game where the plot is an equal part of the motivation, RPG's or whatever, then make one that is good. There should be no excuses for this, games have degenerated enough over the past twenty years without stripping out another feature for no good reason, and the apologists who celebrate and champion such degeneracy have won then. Also try some subtlety in presentation, it adds a lot to depth and replay factor rather than blunt exposition at every point, and doesn't make me feel like an idiot being shown a massive plot signpost. Good point from Assassins of Kings, Philippa's smirk outside Saskia's house, absolutely brilliant.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I'd want to see the full interview, if it's available.
I agree with veleda, that it's perfectly OK for games NOT to have a plot. For some games. I also agree with everyone who says that plot is really important. For some games.

For some games, yes. Surely not for RPG and adventure games. If they lack good plot and story - they are bad games.

 

[Sardukhar]

As a reader and a cinephile, I do surely enjoy a good video game story, that's absolutely not the issue.
As a gamer I'm more interested in what defines games out of other media or art forms, i.e. interactivity, immersion, a distinctive storytelling and rhythm, etc.

Ah, fair enough. And I salute youfor using the word cinephile in conversation.

To me, media is secondary to my experience. Maybe tertiary or lower..anyway. If I come across a good story, that's what excites me. Whether it be The Wire, The Witcher or..some great movie that starts with W...Witness? <Checks imdb>..jeez, not a lot of great movies start with W..Warrior? Good Will Hunting? Whatever.

So, yeah, regardless of media presented, I like the story first. Unlike many other media, though, it is certainly true that a good game can ignore or barely present plot and story and still be good for me.

Not great, though. All my great games have plot and story that I remember and that defined the experience for me.

 

[dragonbird]

For some games, yes. Surely not for RPG and adventure games. If they lack good plot and story - they are bad games.

Absolutely agree with you here. But not every game is an RPG or Adventure game. Other genres do, and should, exist and they don't necessarily need to tell a good story.

I've just been playing Torchlight. The story's crap, but that doesn't impact on my enjoyment of the game. But plot-holes and inconsistencies in an RPG definitely would spoil it.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@dragonbird: Obviously there can be computer games without plot or even story (at least in regular meaning of it). Simplest example are board games like chess Some simulators can be another example.

 

[Glaroug.531]

Best "W" ever for you alliteration needs :yes

 

[dragonbird]

@dragonbird: Obviously there can be computer games without plot or even story (at least in regular meaning of it). Simplest example are board games like chess Some simulators can be another example.

This is why I'd like to see the original article more about the presentation. Context is everything. I don't necessarily need Civ VI to have a cohesive storyline.
Of course, if they WERE talking about RPG, then it's clear BS.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

“They can’t expend the mental bandwidth to follow complex plots and stories when they’re always having to do something else.”

Yeah, this is exactly the point I lost any respect for the authors because they claim that gamers do not have sufficient mental capacities to process gameplay and to follow a plot at the same time, and, in my eyes, they pretty much claim that gamers as a group are either underdeveloped kids and adolescents, or retarded imbeciles, and, by extension, video games are entertainment for people with below average mentality and children. This is an attitude I want to be eradicated because I believe video games are capable of becoming an art form similar to movies. Such a shame that idiots like this are even allowed to do presentations during serious events.

 

[Veleda.980]

It's a bit weird seeing people dismiss plot from games in the Witcher forums. The irony.

Because we aren't all a hive mind here. Sure I'm a fan of CDPR and the Witcher games, but the cinematic, plot-driven type of game isn't my top choice. The Witcher won me over in spite of that fact.

 

[Garrison72]

It could be bad journalism as DB suggests. I mean, IGN... But there's a trend in the industry to dismiss the influence of other media because games need to prove themselves as a unique art form, one that stands on its own. Art history demonstrates no medium exists in a vacuum. I also respectfully disagree with Veleda and others who say you create your own story in a game. That's impossible. You're experiencing narrative already laid out for you by the developers. It doesn't matter if you're playing Witcher, GTA, Dark Souls, Skyrim. Some experiences are non-linear and you piece them together your way, but the parts aren't the player's. Your imagination doesn't play the same role it does in a book or a PnP game. I don't mind other gamers holding the opposite view, but I get pissed when developers and supposed game critics claim there is a right and a wrong way to do anything in such a flexible medium. They of all people should know better. And then there's the notion where the developers in the article dryly conclude statistical data should guide artistic intent....makes me fucking ill to think this happens in the industry.

-edit for clarity. I think.

 

[Mataresa]

I've just been playing Torchlight. The story's crap, but that doesn't impact on my enjoyment of the game. But plot-holes and inconsistencies in an RPG definitely would spoil it.

But would you have enjoyed it less with a good story? Or might you even have enjoyed it more without any story so to speek of? I mean you noticed it as a negative in the game, so I think, the story writers failed. They should have left out the story (which I think would be fine for this game), or made one, that makes sense, even if it is limited.

Because we aren't all a hive mind here. Sure I'm a fan of CDPR and the Witcher games, but the cinematic, plot-driven type of game isn't my top choice. The Witcher won me over in spite of that fact.

I think, cinematic experiences and lots of cutscenes are bad story telling for games. We should be intrduced to the plot and the story through a more direct way fitting with the gameplay mechanics. Taking the control away from the player and giving him a video clip is not the right way to go about in this medium. Also the plot should never get in the way of the game. It has to be in union with the gameplay. Both things that still need to be learned for the most part.

 

[dragonbird]

But would you have enjoyed it less with a good story? Or might you even have enjoyed it more without any story so to speek of? I mean you noticed it as a negative in the game, so I think, the story writers failed.

I didn't think about it at all until I was looking for an example for this thread
I wouldn't have enjoyed it less with a good story. Nor would I have enjoyed it more. The story was irrelevant to the game.

There's more to gaming than RPGs, and if we think that all games need certain elements, such as a story, we're falling into the same trap as those speakers at GDC.

 

[Mataresa]

Then I agree with you, that this wold have been a game that didn't need a story. This also might be somethig that needs to be learned. When don't we need a story in a game. Not all games need one.
GTA is one of those titles which for me wouldn't need to have a story. I never played the story. I just drive around doing random stupid stuff. Same goes for Dark Souls. I think it would be fine with having no story at all. Just roaming around killing monsters.

I for my part also enjoy interactive stories like Dear Esther with not much gameplay at all. It all depends on what fits for the game. Not every game needs to have everything.

 

[Cheylus]

I had an argument with someone about Dark Souls: he was saying the game had "no story" and thus it wasn't a RPG (I tend to qualify as "RPG" any game when I'm investing a part of myself, inputs excepted, in a character and when the game aknowledges it). In fact, I think he was under the prejudice story can only be told with words and pictures.

My experience in DkS was different: I felt every step I made in Lordran as my own. I even experienced vertigo once. Opening a door was a "choice", giving up, hiding from certains monsters or staying hollow in order not to be invaded a part of my own character's personality and story. Then I loved how some parts of the plot was told in item descriptions rather than in cutscenes: as I drove my character into the world, I was driving the story, recollecting pieces and making some sense out of it (in my opinion, you're also becoming "hollow" if you didn't care about that aspect of the game), even if it doesn't make sense. And the story is also told in the brilliant level design.

So, yeah, regardless of media presented, I like the story first. Unlike many other media, though, it is certainly true that a good game can ignore or barely present plot and story and still be good for me.

I don't think we enjoy stories regardless of the medium. I don't know yet about you, but I know for certain I wouldn't have enjoyed TW story (and any game's) without a controller in my hand, as I wouldn't enjoy movies if I were blind and deaf or books if I was illiterate. I'd say that, on the contrary, the medium directs everything.

Take the ladybug scene for instance.
Let's use a device from the medium "movie" (a "cutscene" with angles, close ups, without control over Geralt): everything is fine, you can grasp the meaning of the scene.
Don't use a movie device: the ladybug could have been unnoticed. If you were able to see it, it could have other meanings and rise other questions: why is there a ladybug here? players, with their tendancy for conspiracies and overreaction, would have thought a lot of thing: is it a glitch? does it mean there is an item somewhere if I follow the bug? was it a disguised sorceress who was spying me?

But I don't want to be peremptory. I was surprised people were very aggressive towards the article. All I'm saying is you can make subtile, clever and beautiful games (even a RPG) without a subtile, clever and beautiful plot. A "plot" is for spectators and witnesses, not for actors and, being a player, I'm a little bit of both; then, of course, I need a little bit of plot...

 

[ReptilePZ]

I don't think we enjoy stories regardless of the medium. I don't know yet about you, but I know for certain I wouldn't have enjoyed TW story (and any game's) without a controller in my hand, as I wouldn't enjoy movies if I were blind and deaf or books if I was illiterate. I'd say that, on the contrary, the medium directs everything.

I am sorry, but what?

What you're saying is, if it was impossible for me to experience the story, I wouldn't enjoy it. Well... of course. If you were dead, you wouldn't be able to enjoy life either. I don't see where this point is coming from or where it is going.

As for RPGs and story. I think one of the reasons why I enjoy RPGs as a story-telling genre in games, is that they take the narrative and make it part of the gameplay. You clicking on those words telling Roche you'll help him have no less meaning than you clicking in the general direction of a door you 'choose' to open. Naturally, there are subtypes of RPGs and not all require a good plot. But those generally don't make it part of the gameplay either. And that's absolutely fine. Different people, different tastes.

The reason why people are upset with the article is because, frankly, it's utter shit. Nobody has the right to dictate what a medium is and isn't allowed to use. My opinion on the matter differes from yours. I don't see gaming as its own special medium but a combination of many. It has the potential to create cinematic moments like in moves, tell a long, detailed and complex story of a book, make use of atmospheric music that can move people and add limited interactivity, similar to that of pen and paper games.

We're not there yet, but games such as The Witcher make me hopeful that we're heading in the right direction.

 

[Cheylus]

What you're saying is, if it was impossible for me to experience the story, I wouldn't enjoy it. Well... of course. If you were dead, you wouldn't be able to enjoy life either. I don't see where this point is coming from or where it is going.

No, what I'm saying is what I'm saying, merely stating the obvious indeed.
He was saying that he enjoys "story first" "regardless of the medium". In movie or novels you're mostly passive, not in games. How you're reading a book and turning pages, how you're watching a movie doesn't affect the story. How you're playing affects the story a lot. I don't think one can enjoy video games' stories "regardless of the medium" (as he says) because the medium, through the player, makes the story.
Strip the story of TW of anything "video gamey" and I'm not sure you got a good book or movie...

In the meantime I know times are changing and people enjoy watching other people play for hours. I admit I have a very hard time understanding this. It scares me more than this article, but whatever.

The reason why people are upset with the article is because, frankly, it's utter shit. Nobody has the right to dictate what a medium is and isn't allowed to use.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this article won't have any effect on the industry (and I don't think it dictates anything but, well). We'll still have plots and "story-driven" games like TWD, The Last of Us, The Witcher, L.A. Noire, Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect, etc. And I'm pretty sure we'll have lots of them, after the praise some of those (overrated) games got. To me, the "movie zone" and "cinematic zone" is a comfort zone. It's like when movies mostly used to be nothing more than recorded operas or theater plays, when it didn't have the courage to be its own thing. So...

I don't see gaming as its own special medium but a combination of many.

...that's where I differ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while you're saying it's "similar to pen and paper games" (I agree), you're also telling games are "interactive movies or books". It's like saying movies are "moving paintings with sound".

 

[ReptilePZ]

No, what I'm saying is what I'm saying, merely stating the obvious indeed.
He was saying that he enjoys "story first" "regardless of the medium". In movie or novels you're mostly passive, not in games. How you're reading a book and turning pages, how you're watching a movie doesn't affect the story. How you're playing affects the story a lot. I don't think one can enjoy video games' stories "regardless of the medium" (as he says) because the medium, through the player, makes the story.
Strip the story of TW of anything "video gamey" and I'm not sure you got a good book or movie...

It has nothing to do with what Sard was saying, however. His point is that he likes a good story. And he expects a good story to be delivered to him, regardless of the medium. How that medium delivers that story is a different matter entirely, which seems to me is what you're arguing. So no, if you strip all the "video gamey" stuff from The Witcher, it would not make a good book or a movie because it takes elements from them and combines them. But that's not what was being discussed in the first place.

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this article won't have any effect on the industry (and I don't think it dictates anything but, well). We'll still have plots and "story-driven" games like TWD, The Last of Us, The Witcher, L.A. Noire, Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect, etc. And I'm pretty sure we'll have lots of them, after the praise some of those (overrated) games got. To me, the "movie zone" and "cinematic zone" is a comfort zone. It's like when movies mostly used to be nothing more than recorded operas or theater plays, when it didn't have the courage to be its own thing. So...

I am not worried about what effect the article might have (although the fact that this is coming out of the mouths of 'industry veterans' doesn't make me feel great either), I am just explaining to you why it's nonsense and why people do not agree with it, which is what you were asking.

...that's where I differ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while you're saying it's "similar to pen and paper games" (I agree), you're also telling games are "interactive movies or books". It's like saying movies are "moving paintings with sound".

No, what I'm saying is what I'm saying. Games take elements from different media and incorporate them togehter - something that no other medium does in such a way. The closest you can get to a computer RPG are choose your own adventure books or pen and paper games, but those lack the visual/audio component.

And movies are moving pictures with sound, yes, but they're also backed up with a story that makes you feel something. Music is soundwaves that follow a particular pattern that result in emotion. Games, since they're a visual medium, share a lot with movies, taking elements from them is inevitable. So they are all of that, combined - not merely "interactive movies or books." You can take the cinematic moments of a movie, a story of a book and mix it together with dialogue, movement, action etc. choices that are in fact gameplay. RPGs, for example, have been doing it for a while now - some better than others.

That does not mean that a video game can't take just some elements and focus on those. That's what's so great about them, they're very flexible. There are games that focus on the story, others focus on the experience and there are those who are just about having fun - what games were originally. And all of those have equal validity in existing. What the article suggests is that it's best to focus on one area, ultimately restricting what video games can achieve.

 

[Blothulfur]

I agree that interactivity is the greatest strength of this medium, and that developers who focus on that are to be praised, while those who try to deny it are to be condemned. For instance there is a modern trend of making all answers merely flavour and lead to the same result, not only does this invalidate replays and is childishly simple to detect but it's just fucking lazy and wrong. If you're not going to take advantage of the strength of a medium why even bloody bother? Yeah it can be hard to craft a coherent story when there are many points of interactivity, well tough shit my job on the line is tough but I get paid for it so I do it.

Cinematics can aid storytelling, but so does being the potagonist and doing crap yourself. Good example of cinematics aiding storytelling is Foltest's murder, bad example is Letho winning under the baths, because it invalidates our agency. I'm not in favour of story overiding every other aspect, certainly don't want an incoherent mess of story that is nonsensical tripe being fed to me as I proceed down a corridor of endless alternate combat interspersed with conversation, I want all aspects to be in balance, support each other and most of all make fucking sense.

Course there's a lot of calls to be subjective and to not point out any flaws because somebody, somewheres feelings might be offended, but if history has taught us one thing it's that mankind needs offending and settling for shit doesn't move a medium ahead, it just makes it degenerate the way games have been doing for a bloody long time. Sodding hell if modern hardware can't make levels as big and reactive as that from ten to fifteen years ago in the modern Thief, then you know that something is deeply bloody wrong and needs a kick up arse to be righted, not making excuses for.

 

[Sardukhar]

What I said was, I enjoy story -first-, regardless of medium. It's the most important and favourite thing about the experience for me. So, I would have enjoyed the story of Witcher 1 and 2 in book or movie form, quite a bit. Depending on who did it or how, maybe more than the video game. Maybe less.

This doesn't mean medium is irrelevant to me, or I would have said I enjoy story totally and don't care about medium. It does mean that the in the composition of elements that make up my experience of a subject: story, character, events, gameplay, etc story comes first.

If there is little to no good story, I may still enjoy the entertainment. Music, for example. Or Call of Duty Modern Warfare MP.

So, regardless of medium, for me, a good story, ( if present) is the most enjoyable part of the experience. Then, in video game world...probably characters, I guess? But, perhaps gameplay? Graphics I don't care too much about as long as they are vaguely current. Sound, so-so. Voice-acting, whatever.

But first and foremost, am I swept up in the story? Am I immersed? Am I enthralled?