3 ms·

One thing that isn't mentionned is that games makes you engage way more with the story than movies because of how they are. In most games you can explore areas

by Zababa 5y ago

One thing that isn't mentionned is that games makes you engage way more with the story than movies because of how they are. In most games you can explore areas to discover more things. The equivalent doesn't really exist in movies or books. You can maybe reread a chapter or a paragraph. Pause a film and look at all the details. But that's something people rarely do unless they are analyzing the thing. In games, you have a way more "a la carte" experience. I know that I and many people have a "main road" sense, in which it's easy to see what's the main road that will progress the game, and what are optional branches. That means that if you want to engage more with the world, you can easily choose to. The main quest of Skyrim takes 30 hours, but I'm sure that most people played way more than that. Same thing with games like Far Cry, you can rush the main story, or you can take your time and do way more things. I think that makes games a media where often you don't follow a story but engage with a world. Those are two very different things. Even in linear "walking simulators", there are usually tons of optional stuff. The equivalent would be to have a movie or book that dynamically react to you, and that doesn't really exists, at least not as well as how games do it. On the other hand, the experience of reading a book and imagining all the visual parts, or sitting there watching a movie are also very unique, and can't be filled by other medias.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
> The equivalent would be to have a movie or book that dynamically react to you, and that doesn't really exists, at least not as well as how games do it. This does exist and is called interactive fiction, FWIW. I do agree however it isn’t as clearly reactive to the consumer as a video game (you can turn on a dime in a video game, but in interactive fiction you don’t get such a granular level of control in how you interact).
- Zababa 5y ago
  I would personally classify interactive fiction closer to games, unless you count gamebooks in that, which I consider closer to books. There was also a movie where you get to get choices linked to Black Mirror that was popular recently, and a few people on youtube explored this by making different videos and letting you pick "what happens next". There's also the whole genre of visual novels, mostly from Japan. I'm not sure if they are more games, books or interactive fiction.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I would consider interactive fiction I’ve seen to be more like stories than games, mostly because the game mechanics part of them are often extremely thin(clicking).
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Good point, I was perhaps too focused on how the story is consumed (a computer vs a book vs a screen) but that may not be the most important part.
GuB-42 5y ago
I would add that there is a trade-off in games between agency and a good story. The more effort you make to integrate player actions, the less resources you have to make a compelling story. In the most obvious case: story branching, you have double the work for each branch, some of them may be hard to make interesting. Some Japanese visual novels may have great stories, but they are games in name only. For example the "when they cry" series are literally visual novels (or sound novels as they like to call them), there are zero gameplay elements, and no branching, you are basically reading a book with a few illustrations and (very good) background music. On the other side, some games focus so much on action that the only goal of the story is to tell you who the bad guys are and not get in the way of shooting them.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > The more effort you make to integrate player actions, the less resources you have to make a compelling story. In the most obvious case: story branching, you have double the work for each branch, some of them may be hard to make interesting. That's very true, you don't have infinite resources. > Some Japanese visual novels may have great stories, but they are games in name only. For example the "when they cry" series are literally visual novels (or sound novels as they like to call them), there are zero gameplay elements, and no branching, you are basically reading a book with a few illustrations and (very good) background music. True, but you also have others like Hollow Ataraxia where you have way more gameplay. Still not as much as a "classic" game, especially these days, but this wouldn't be possible in another format, which I think is key. Same thing with the when they cry series, the music is very important and they wouldn't work as well as book.

by Zababa 5y ago

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

> The equivalent would be to have a movie or book that dynamically react to you, and that doesn't really exists, at least not as well as how games do it. This does exist and is called interactive fiction, FWIW. I do agree however it isn’t as clearly reactive to the consumer as a video game (you can turn on a dime in a video game, but in interactive fiction you don’t get such a granular level of control in how you interact).

Zababa 5y ago
I would personally classify interactive fiction closer to games, unless you count gamebooks in that, which I consider closer to books. There was also a movie where you get to get choices linked to Black Mirror that was popular recently, and a few people on youtube explored this by making different videos and letting you pick "what happens next". There's also the whole genre of visual novels, mostly from Japan. I'm not sure if they are more games, books or interactive fiction.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I would consider interactive fiction I’ve seen to be more like stories than games, mostly because the game mechanics part of them are often extremely thin(clicking).
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Good point, I was perhaps too focused on how the story is consumed (a computer vs a book vs a screen) but that may not be the most important part.

GuB-42 5y ago

I would add that there is a trade-off in games between agency and a good story. The more effort you make to integrate player actions, the less resources you have to make a compelling story. In the most obvious case: story branching, you have double the work for each branch, some of them may be hard to make interesting. Some Japanese visual novels may have great stories, but they are games in name only. For example the "when they cry" series are literally visual novels (or sound novels as they like to call them), there are zero gameplay elements, and no branching, you are basically reading a book with a few illustrations and (very good) background music. On the other side, some games focus so much on action that the only goal of the story is to tell you who the bad guys are and not get in the way of shooting them.

Zababa 5y ago
> The more effort you make to integrate player actions, the less resources you have to make a compelling story. In the most obvious case: story branching, you have double the work for each branch, some of them may be hard to make interesting. That's very true, you don't have infinite resources. > Some Japanese visual novels may have great stories, but they are games in name only. For example the "when they cry" series are literally visual novels (or sound novels as they like to call them), there are zero gameplay elements, and no branching, you are basically reading a book with a few illustrations and (very good) background music. True, but you also have others like Hollow Ataraxia where you have way more gameplay. Still not as much as a "classic" game, especially these days, but this wouldn't be possible in another format, which I think is key. Same thing with the when they cry series, the music is very important and they wouldn't work as well as book.