Quote:

Even when you play Starcraft you get to choose Terran, Zerg, or Protoss forcess, or whichever teams or factions the custom maps decide, all being aspects of story that build the setting or environment.

When talking about custom maps, do you mean Use Map Settings maps? If you are, then yes, they have whatever storyline the map maker says.

I'm talking about the competitive game, though. When you choose your race (or if you choose Random), you aren't fitting in with a story line at all. Surely, though, you are talking about UMS?

Hmmm.. provides some interesting thinking though. He doesn't really seem to touch on how the HLS (designer intended message) creates the setting and environment that the LLS takes place in. In that sense every game does have at least some HLS to it. Or perhalps its something different than the HLS? If High Level Story is plot, and Low Level Story is gameplay, whats the setting and environment?

EDIT:

Quote:

I'm talking about the competitive game, though. When you choose your race (or if you choose Random), you aren't fitting in with a story line at all. Surely, though, you are talking about UMS?

yes, i'm talking about UMS, AND competitive play. If the game had no story, then the setting would be green squares building red squares, collecting blue squares. Even though there is no intrinsic message to a competitive match, your still playing as a Terran, a Protoss, or a Zerg, characters fighting in a setting with specific weapons, all of which are elements from a story.

There are some interesting criticisms of the article in the discussion section for it. Although I think one important point is missed.

The whole issue that the author is trying to deal with is replayability. The problem being that the player does not have enough freedom to have completely different experiences every play-through. I think Tetris provides an interesting clue here.

How many things have you ever really wanted to do to a tetris block? All you can really reasonably expect to do to it is move/rotate it in two dimensions and remove it from the screen and the game allows you to do all of these things. Even though this is very limited functionality, it provides all the freedom the player desires. Whereas an RPG where there a hundreds of NPCs to interact with simply can't. How many things have you ever really wanted to do with a person? Thats just not feasible to program!

It's something to keep in mind when designing the game world. Less is more. The more complex your world, the more complex the interactions the player will want to carry out, and will be frustrated when it's not possible.

Quote:

Original post by mumpo No; that's just not true. Games can be used as a story-telling medium, but that is not what makes a game a game, or what makes people want to play them. Counter-Strike is popular because it takes skill and is fun to play, not because people like the roll-playing aspect or really care what happens to those AI-controlled hostages. In most games worth playing, the most important element by far is the way that the user interacts with them, the gameplay. Many games have a story, but it can most often be ignored without detracting from the experience, and many other games lack any real story.

Well, it was about the message, not the storyline. And I think I'd say that the message is *roughly* equivalent to the experience you mention. It's not about what happens to the main character in whatever universe the game takes place in, it's the experience you as a player get out of it. That might be emotion when an important character dies (that FF7 girl comes to mind, even though I hated the game), or it might be to make you think about, well, something, or it might just be pure pleasure in proving your CS skills to be better than anyone else on the server.

I think you're focusing too much on the story. I guess that's just one of several ways to convey a message to the player.

Quote:

The story is very important in some games, and to some gamers, but games are different from movies and books in a very fundamental way; that interactivity matters deeply.

And books lack the visual aspect. Isn't that just as fundamental?

Quote:

Some games may have a message, but most lack any intentional message, I think.

But does that means games shouldn't even explore this?

Quote:

People play games to have fun, not to learn universal truths.

Some people do, just like some people read books or watch movies to have fun. But still, others do it for, as you call it, the universal truth. ;)
I think it's a very valid point, and I think that entire aspect of games has been very much overlooked until now. (Just as it was with early movies, which were also just for people to have fun.)

I think trying to explore this might just be the way to expand the gaming medium, the same way it happened with movies. At some point, people had gotten comfortable enough with the medium to start actually telling stories. And not just tell stories, but actually try to convey a message with them.
I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen with games. (Or with *some* games. Just like some movies are still only about fun and entertainment, some games are and always will be the same. But I'd like to see other games branch off and start working on how to actually deliver a message to the player.)

Quote:

while games are a good medium for story-telling, it is not an intrinsic part of them.

Hmm, then I'll say that while it's not *currently* an intrinsic part of them, it could become one. I'd even say it *should* become one. It's an entire new aspect of games, that practically haven't been explored yet.
But yes, I think some games are fine without a message, and always will be. That's no problem. Entertaining games are always welcome.
But I think it is a problem that this attitude that games are "just" for fun, is currently holding us back from exploring games which might become more than just entertainment.

Be careful, you are walking into a logistical trap.

Say, you make a war game, with the intended game message that "war is bad". You stuff this game with all the horrors of war you can possably cram into the story...firebombing innocent civillians, brutal graphic slaughtering of soldiers, senseless kill or be killed scenarios...War is bad, and you intent to show every player just how low, dirty, pointless, and rotten war can be.

Except...the game is FUN to play. Its just an out and out thrill to run around blowing those "bad guys"(TM) away. Players nearly wet themselves in anticipation of the napalm fire strike they just ordered on some poor defenseless village. They whoot and hollar at every wayward severed eyeball flying into the screen...Despite your intended message of "War is bad", players are more than eager to replay the same scenarios over and over again, to bathe in the blood bath you desgined for them the be repulsed by...You see, despite your message, killing in your game is FUN!...Which implicitly invalidates your intended message, don't it?

MSW, lets look at your argument a different way.

Lets say you intend to make a movie showing the horrors of war. However, the movie turns out to be really amusing, and to your horror, people walk away from it feeling good about war. Now what do you call that? Your film might not necessarily be bad, it may even be a good pro-war film (however unintentional it was). But from your perspective, not only have you failed your goal (anti-war protest) but you have actually hurt your cause.

In any case, this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. [smile]

Quote:

MSW, lets look at your argument a different way. Lets say you intend to make a movie showing the horrors of war. However, the movie turns out to be really amusing, and to your horror, people walk away from it feeling good about war. Now what do you call that? Your film might not necessarily be bad, it may even be a good pro-war film (however unintentional it was). But from your perspective, not only have you failed your goal (anti-war protest) but you have actually hurt your cause.

Well if my intended message was "war is bad", but the audiance picks up "war is good" from my film...then I certainly have failed, and I should never be allowed within 500 feet of a film camera ever again!

However, if you are trying to imply that game designers should pursue some sort of emergant message in games...that is to let players generate thier own interpreted message from your game...well, you are a day late and a dollar short because they ALREADY ARE!...Heck, if you look hard enough you are bound to find intellectualy dry deconstructionist essays describeing how the game Tetris is a metaphorical mirror to our human need to generate order from chaos. :P

Quote:

In any case, this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

*cough* implamentation of your idea (the message) is not relevent to the disscussion???

Quote:

you are trying to imply that game designers should pursue some sort of emergant message in games...that is to let players generate thier own interpreted message from your game...

Its possible for a game to do this but I wasnt suggesting it. It seems to me that its hard enough for a designer to work a good message into his work, let alone the player.

Quote:

*cough* implamentation of your idea (the message) is not relevent to the disscussion???

Well your post was talking about an unintentional reversal of message in a game. The reason this isnt relevant is because Im talking about the finished product. If that product isnt what someone intended (even the designer), its not important, we're only looking at the end result.

Of course there is the issue of a message being interpreted in multiple (possibly conflicting) ways, but that is more of a problem of implementation because its a designer dilemma (intended and resulting message again).

Quote:

Original post by Risujin Mumpo, you're right. I really shouldn'tve been so focused on "story" as what I meant was more experience and in a very general way.

I'm glad you admit it [grin].

Quote:

But I don't think you dig deep enough here. When you say "I play counter-strike because it is fun," what makes it fun? If you stripped the game of all relevant graphics and reduced it to green blocks shooting red blocks (leave enough detail to be playable and it is still 3D of course) the game just isnt as fun anymore is it? [wink]

Actually, it would still be fun. Oh, of course I prefer it with the nice 3d animations and stuff, but it is the gameplay mechanics that are at the heart of why I enjoy the game, not the role playing. Or, if you prefer, my imagination requires much less to work on than you believe. To put it bluntly, I have played the game you described many times, and I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, I cannot name it for dramatic effect, since it has gone under many names, but, then, that just shows that other people agree with me, doesn't it? [wink] The game I refer to is that game where you control a twenty polygon "tank" and drive around shooting red pyramids that are supposed to be bullets at other "tanks" who try to hide from you behind colored cubes.

Quote:

When people say Counter-Strike takes "skill" to play, what they're really saying is that it has a steep learning curve, which is part of the challenge (see my reply before this). That too is part of the "message" of Counter-Strike. A steep learning curve takes a longer time to master (ie more game-time, more fun).

That is a misuse of the phrase "learning curve". The phrase means how long it takes a person to learn how to play the game, meaning the controls, the rules, and the goals (a couple hours, maybe), not how long it takes him or her to become good at it. Counter-Strike and games like it take a long to master because you have to think on your feet and adapt to enemies who adapt to you, and because (as dorky as it sounds) you have to physically train your body to exert fine control over the mouse and keyboard. You talk like people go to a shooting range to learn how to fire a gun, but they learn how to release the safety and pull the trigger very early on; what they go for is to learn and maintain fine control of the weapon. The difference is that the skill needed to play a game like Counter-Strike well has as much to do with mind-set and intuition as with rules. I know what you are getting at, but in that case, why did you ever think that changing the 3D models used in the game would make it boring? The challenge has little to do with the graphics of the game, beyond how easy it is to locate objects and locations of interest.

Quote:

If you removed the ranks/frags/stats it wouldnt be as fun because you wouldnt have feedback on your performance (just imagine Tetris without scoring!).

I whole-heartedly agree that the stats are very important. (Although I disagree that people wouldn't have feedback; they could still see the boxes disappear, so they would try to keep track of it in their heads. People - or at least the sorts of people who play Counter-Strike - are like that.)

Quote:

Now back to our stripped-down Counter-Strike, why isnt that fun anymore? Because the big idea (a big message) of Counter-Strike, is to surround the player in a hostile and violent world in which the gun is the only rule (and teamwork to some degree). The terrorism theme and realistic weaponry/gameplay all serve this end.

Again, you defeat your own arguement. The player is surrounded by a hostile and violent world, whether you can count the nose hairs on your victim, or his mesh lacks a nose completely. Of course the terrorism theme and realistic weaponry help, but gameplay is king.

Quote:

This turned out to be a very popular message, who hasnt at some point wanted to "just shoot someone"? Counter-Strike lets you act out your aggression and graphically depicts the results. This is actually why so many kids play Counter-Strike. They're full of frustration/anger and they want to act it out.

That is a pretty sweeping generalization there. There are many possible reasons for people to play such a game. For myself, it is the challenge and the competition (or sometimes sheer boredom) that makes me play, not frustration or anger. I'm sure that many other people, if not most, play for similar reasons, or for other reasons that neither of us mentioned.

Although I am very good at finding flaws in other people's arguements (whether they are significant or not), I think ultimately our differences stem mostly from different definitions of "message". I use a narrower definition than you because words often become less useful the more general they come, but I would be the first to admit that messages and themes are found in everything, whether or not anyone intended to put them there, and that whether they are intentional or not has little bearing on how they effect people. I would say that Counter-Strike has no message, not because one cannot find generalized lessons in it, or find messages in it, but because I do not believe it was intended as a form of self-expression by its creators, and thus I try to ignore any messages I do find in it. However, I realize that it is impossible to make anything without a message in the broader sense, because that is the way human minds work: they find patterns, whether they are there or not. As long as people are going to read a message from your game, I suppose one should probably at least consider trying to shape what that message is. I disagree with you on a lot of specifics, but you certainly gave me a lot to think about, so thanks.

Quote:

Original post by Risujin [...]games, are based on a finite set of story-telling devices.[...]

I disagree with this statementh, which is a pillar for your whole post. Games can contain and present a story, but you can have almost any type of game that doesn't directly present a story (strategy games, FPSes, action adventure, etc). You might claim the games have a story, such as doom being on mars with hell spawn, but that is a setting that can be entirely changed without changing the game itself at all.

The difference in Doom and Thief is gameplay mechanics. You can have a pretense for those mechanics or you can omit it - either way the game it still the same.

Personally, I don't much care for story. Yes, it can be interesting, but as of yet I haven't seen a good implementation of story. All of my 'dream games' contain no story but have quite a bit of gameplay and are quite different games.

As a simple example, you could take the game Super Mario Brothers and change the appearance of Mario to a bunny, change koopa troopas to vultures, goombas to foxes, pipes to trees, leave the piranha plants and powerups alone and suddenly you have 'Fuzzy the Celtic Rabit' with exactly the gameplay, but a completely different message and image. As a gamer, I would enjoy the game just as much if it had been released that way
because the important aspect is the gameplay and not really any other aspect.