3 ms·

I hear this opinion expressed a lot by people that don't play many video games anymore, and I don't agree with it either. There are a ton of modern games with r

by skuhn 12y ago

I hear this opinion expressed a lot by people that don't play many video games anymore, and I don't agree with it either. There are a ton of modern games with really compelling narratives. Along with the ones you mentioned, there's been Wolfenstein: The New Order, BioShock, Uncharted, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, Catherine, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Enslaved, Fallout: New Vegas, Life is Strange, Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, Spec Ops: The Line, Dishonored and many more just in the last five years, all with excellent stories in a variety of genres. There have even been some recent adventure games that can hold their own against the best of the golden age, like Broken Sword 5 and Tesla Effect. I think a lot of this perception comes from how the most popular video games present themselves: as mindless diversions. Think Call of Duty, League of Legends, Candy Crush, and so on. They can still be fun, but the story components are afterthoughts, hopelessly generic, or entirely non-existent. If you aren't participating in the market and seeking out new experiences, you don't know what's really out there. I do miss classic adventure games, and a lot of what Al talks about does ring true to me. They were the AAA games of their era, and yet Sierra and Lucas and Revolution never put out a generic or cash-in game. Even though these games were heavily sequelized (far beyond modern standards), they retained a unique voice. It would be amazing to see a modern publisher crank out games as often as Sierra did while matching their level of quality and innovation.

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>There are a ton of modern games with really compelling narratives. The problem isn't really the narrative, but rather the lack of a well-developed, deep setting. All of the games you listed have very good stories, but those stories make you the Center of the Universe and everything revolves around you. Even the parts of the setting that are explained give a very strong feeling that, at the end of the day, they were developed to justify and validate your goals and missions, either by hampering you or aiding you. In direct contrast, I'd like to point to the Baldur's Gate games. They don't just have an excellent narrative. They also take place in a very strong, well-established setting. This setting successfully conveys the feeling that, while you are an important character and what you're trying to do is important, at the end of the day the world (of Faerun) is chock full of people and organizations and nations with their own agendas. The epic saga you experience is simply one strand in a massive tapestry. And in the end you don't save the world or some such nonsense. You simply conclude your own story, and life goes on. Compare this to Mass Effect, where you literally save the entire galaxy from ultra-powerful robots who literally want to wipe out all life. Okay, fine. But the series does so little setting development that you end up caring more about destroying the bad guys than understanding and learning about the galaxy you are trying to save.
- Vaskivo 12y ago
  It's interesting you mention Baldur's Gate. You have to realize that its setting, the Forgotten Realms, already was a fully developed one. It already was 10 years old and was being developed and expended by multiple people. And with continuous fan feedback Now contrast this with Mass Effect, when you have a team of (just throwing a number around) 10 people writing the story and the setting during it's 4/5 year development in secret. You can't possibly expect the same level of detail or complexity.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    I thought about that, but there were other games where the developers created their own deep setting. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind for example. In the grand scheme of that game's setting, you were just some guy in a huge world that was full of interesting people and organizations. I couldn't say the same for Mass Effect 3, which had your companions, and a few people you interacted with in your quest to save the galaxy, but that's pretty much it.
    - Vaskivo 12y ago
      Again, Morrowind is the third game. Arena is still very "iffy" setting wise. And bland. Stuff only started getting interesting (i.e. weird :) ) in Daggerfall. And don't forget that The elder scrolls is known for it's "flexible" and uncertain lore (Who/what is really Talos?) and big retcons (Cyrodill's forests). But I agree with what you say about Mass Effect. I just think that they are different things for different tastes. On the Mass Effect side you have highly developed characters and character interactions and a high focus on emotional and memorable setpieces. There is a great effort to provide an emotional story, and making the player experience it in the best way possible. On the other hand you have The Elder Scrolls, where the story and character are not so interesting (or what makes them interesting is not thrown in your face) and the story is just a pretext to make you experience the world. The world is what is important, so it's what is developed. There is also a different purpose in the different "levels" of the game. While in ME a design goal may be "The player should fight an old friend, after discovering his betrayal", in TES may be "The player should fight a dragon near a boiling volcano using a dwarven ballista". In the first one the writer have to focus on the emotion to be conveyed by the dialog and environment, while in the second the writers just have to justify the environment (i.e. "Why is there a dwarven ballista?"). I also belive that writers in TES are given the reedom to write what they want and if it's cool it goes into the game. That's how I believe all that trippy stuff[0] got into Morrowind. [0] https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/the-metaphysics-of-morrowind-part-1/ https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/the-metaph... (not the best explanation, but an interesting read)
babuskov 12y ago
I recently played The Cave from Double Fine. It's a kind of attempt to create modern kind of classic adventure. You still have fun story, items and need to use them properly, but UX is more fun than clicking the mouse all around.
- skuhn 12y ago
  It's on my list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I am quite excited to see what Ron Gilbert does with Thimbleweed Park, which is purposefully old school in concept.

by skuhn 12y ago

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>There are a ton of modern games with really compelling narratives. The problem isn't really the narrative, but rather the lack of a well-developed, deep setting. All of the games you listed have very good stories, but those stories make you the Center of the Universe and everything revolves around you. Even the parts of the setting that are explained give a very strong feeling that, at the end of the day, they were developed to justify and validate your goals and missions, either by hampering you or aiding you. In direct contrast, I'd like to point to the Baldur's Gate games. They don't just have an excellent narrative. They also take place in a very strong, well-established setting. This setting successfully conveys the feeling that, while you are an important character and what you're trying to do is important, at the end of the day the world (of Faerun) is chock full of people and organizations and nations with their own agendas. The epic saga you experience is simply one strand in a massive tapestry. And in the end you don't save the world or some such nonsense. You simply conclude your own story, and life goes on. Compare this to Mass Effect, where you literally save the entire galaxy from ultra-powerful robots who literally want to wipe out all life. Okay, fine. But the series does so little setting development that you end up caring more about destroying the bad guys than understanding and learning about the galaxy you are trying to save.

Vaskivo 12y ago
It's interesting you mention Baldur's Gate. You have to realize that its setting, the Forgotten Realms, already was a fully developed one. It already was 10 years old and was being developed and expended by multiple people. And with continuous fan feedback Now contrast this with Mass Effect, when you have a team of (just throwing a number around) 10 people writing the story and the setting during it's 4/5 year development in secret. You can't possibly expect the same level of detail or complexity.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  I thought about that, but there were other games where the developers created their own deep setting. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind for example. In the grand scheme of that game's setting, you were just some guy in a huge world that was full of interesting people and organizations. I couldn't say the same for Mass Effect 3, which had your companions, and a few people you interacted with in your quest to save the galaxy, but that's pretty much it.
  - Vaskivo 12y ago
    Again, Morrowind is the third game. Arena is still very "iffy" setting wise. And bland. Stuff only started getting interesting (i.e. weird :) ) in Daggerfall. And don't forget that The elder scrolls is known for it's "flexible" and uncertain lore (Who/what is really Talos?) and big retcons (Cyrodill's forests). But I agree with what you say about Mass Effect. I just think that they are different things for different tastes. On the Mass Effect side you have highly developed characters and character interactions and a high focus on emotional and memorable setpieces. There is a great effort to provide an emotional story, and making the player experience it in the best way possible. On the other hand you have The Elder Scrolls, where the story and character are not so interesting (or what makes them interesting is not thrown in your face) and the story is just a pretext to make you experience the world. The world is what is important, so it's what is developed. There is also a different purpose in the different "levels" of the game. While in ME a design goal may be "The player should fight an old friend, after discovering his betrayal", in TES may be "The player should fight a dragon near a boiling volcano using a dwarven ballista". In the first one the writer have to focus on the emotion to be conveyed by the dialog and environment, while in the second the writers just have to justify the environment (i.e. "Why is there a dwarven ballista?"). I also belive that writers in TES are given the reedom to write what they want and if it's cool it goes into the game. That's how I believe all that trippy stuff[0] got into Morrowind. [0] https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/the-metaphysics-of-morrowind-part-1/ https://fallingawkwardly.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/the-metaph... (not the best explanation, but an interesting read)

babuskov 12y ago

I recently played The Cave from Double Fine. It's a kind of attempt to create modern kind of classic adventure. You still have fun story, items and need to use them properly, but UX is more fun than clicking the mouse all around.

skuhn 12y ago
It's on my list, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I am quite excited to see what Ron Gilbert does with Thimbleweed Park, which is purposefully old school in concept.