My message? We not only survive, we thrive. All of us, as in the human race.

I choose this one because I grew up on a steady diet of pessimistic nuclear holocaust science fiction which gave way to nihilistic cyberpunk gloom. I despise the ultimate message of noir-- right down to the center of my gut. Yes, I know the world is screwed up, and has severe challenges to our collective survival-- but I'll be damned if I let that be the last word.

---

So I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's not story per se (as you've said), it's the game design dynamics which foster a certain sense, a certain aesthetic. The aesthetic, then, is the message.

I just got a chance to play a card game called Salem Witch Trials that is a great example of this. It's a game where you're basically a greedy lawyer making money off of winning legal trials in the 1700s. People are accused of various horrendous crimes (like showing their ankles, or being a vegetarian[grin]), and you have to manuever cases into court so you can play a series of legal moves (in the form of cards).

The game richly succeeds in conveying the message that lawyers play by money-based rules that often trump justice (you can find yourself plea-bargaining not because someone is guilty, but because it's the only way to make a profit). It also captures the sense of paranoia and superstition that was prevalent in the times, enough so to make you laugh (though a bit nervously if you know the real history).

---

One comment in terms of message, though: The message and whether or not the gamer gets the message are two separate things. Doom's message comes across me as "SURVIVE!!!!!!" But that's only because I insist on abusing the experience at the hardest difficulty level. [grin]

So maybe the settings, tactics and play styles can cause a game to have multiple-- even maleable-- messages?

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.

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]

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). 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!).

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.

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.

EDIT: Wavinator, thanks for the positive post! The message of a game is definitely maleable. Like you mentioned, difficulty settings and the player's choices (morality games) have a great effect. But most importantly is the technical skill of the game developers to pass along their intended message(s). [grin]

EDIT: Daniel, Wavinator called it an asthetic which is a good word for it, but I used story because while the message can be just a feeling, it can also be a more specific/explicit statement about something. The feeling can be targeted at something by the story/environment.

[Edited by - Risujin on July 25, 2005 4:52:40 PM]

Risujin, I understand your point, but as you say its wrong to put so much emphasis on story. I think if you look at movie and games from the perspective of an outsider things start to make sense.

Tomb Raider 1: (my most favoritest example ever)
Imagine a friend who doesn't know Tomb Raider walks into the room and begins watching. The first thing they will probably see is lara, what shes wearing (and what shes not wearing), next they will notice what she's doing - shes running. They will then try to understand the location by pulling all the available info together, its dark, the ground is green, there's a dog barking, lights in the distance - shes probably in a park at night. This is game experience and it is totaly independant, but driven by the story. It also creates the story!

The story is an implicit part of the game experience. Without knowing who she is, why she is there or whats wrong with her breasts the new viewer has an exciting experience of a young woman running through a park at night and could those dogs be dangerous?

the increasing quality of graphics should simply be a tool for developers to make these experiences more than they could be before. Now lara looks like a more rounded character - her smooth movements and agile animations better describe the character and the experience. The environment now features obvious grass moving in the wind, and subtle lighting shows a path and litter scattered here and ther. Surround sound provides rustling sounds all about her. The story is exactly the same, but the experience has been enhanced greatly and for that it is a better game and the story is stronger.

I find it difficult to describe because it is a prety abstract relationship.
The story creates the experience - the quality of experience enhances the story.

For further verification of this consider Half-Life which probably used less than two minutes of story telling audio, gamers finish it thinking many different things about the events but they all know what Gordon went through and who he was. They also have a strong opinion about what they experienced. But ask them what the story is and they will sum it up in a few sentences (I expect). As opposed to the massively strong story driven plot of Resident evil witch I would probably use less words to describe!

The story/experience rule can be applied to any game from breakout to Counter Strike, our brains automaticaly form valid reasons for actions and situations a good game allows the expansion of these thaughts and feelings beyond the scripted storyline. Unlike hollywood I don't think games have reached a stage where unspoken rules about story vs experience exist As they do in our Thriller Vs action movie generas for example, lets hope that doesn't happen.

Hope I make sense, and I can't be bothered to spell check so you see my writing in its n00bie state.

Ut O, we both made the same point at the same time... :)

Then there might be some truth to it. [wink]

Stories in games are a mixture of a delay tactic, a manipulative tool for the coercion of the gamer into engaging in repetitive behavior ("Level up!", "Finish the level!", "Beat the boss!", "Find the alternate ending!"), and a rationalization for identical physical action (Far Cry vs Half-Life 2 vs DOOM³ vs <insert FPS here>).

Sometimes all of this becomes apparent, as in any game where you have mastered all the mechanics and you simply progress through to completion so you can watch the closing FMV. *yawn* If you lack the stereotypical compulsive gamer impulse, you actually don't bother to play most games within a genre generation simply because they are variations on a fundamental theme, and it's quicker to find a walkthrough video or picture summary: get the story, skip the tedium of "play."

So what are games? Even as the game industry continues to expand, the most popular games are the ones in which user create their own stories implicitly out of their virtual actions: sports games, where coming back from 21 down in the fourth quarter against the top-ranked defense is a story worth telling your friends; the various Sims titles, where your influences on your sims and their responses create wordless, vaudevillean narrative; and action games, where you relive the glory of placing six shots between the eyes of six successive opponents at cardinal points in the room within a 10-second interval.

So much for "story."

There's a corresponding reason for the incredible popularity of online play, and not just with AAA titles. The interaction with a genuinely unpredictable opponent/competitor, the ability to build histories and create a veritable litany of your own - these factors are as much at play on Xbox Live as they are on Yahoo! Games. People are creating their own mini-stories, where their mundane actions have consequence and import, because the ones that professional writers construct for them, in which they are tasked with saving the world or solving a murder, don't connect as much anymore. We live in a saturated media world, and we're bombarded by stories that ask us to commit our attention for a half hour, an hour, every week of every month of every year, and sometimes we need to get away from that and tell stories, or live them.

Our notions - mine and Risujin's - can coexist if consequence and duration are worked into his thesis: it is important for gamers to be able to convey their messages, and then share them with friends, and control how long it takes to create and tell. Barring that, I'll have to play the snide cynic and pooh-pooh this idea as "one of those things writers who don't 'get' games come up with."

Quote:

When people say Counter-Strike takes "skill" to play, what they're really saying is that it has a steep learning curve

*Off topic*

Not really. :P

There are things with steep learning curves that take very little of what anyone would call skill (learning how to touch type is an example), and there are things without steep learning curves that take lots of skill (Counter Strike, as a matter of fact... yes, I realize that newbs can't compete with experienced players, but after a a few hours of playing that no longer look akward).

Back on topic:

While I don't play CS, all of my friends do, and they love the competition of it, not the graphics. However, when you strip a game down to red and green blocks, you are actually creating something ugly, so you aren't simply isolating the gameplay. Having average run-of-the-mill graphics (which CS has) is a better way to tell whether graphics are the main attraction to a game.

Lastly, I play Stacraft, and there is no story at all when playing multiplayer. I dislike games that force stories on you, because I just want to play and compete; I don't care about anything else. That's why it sounds strange to hear you say that each and every games has a story. Sure, Starcraft has a campaign mode with a story, but that mode isn't required for anything and it's only played by a small fraction of people. You could completely remove that mode from the game and most people wouldn't even notice.

I think what were trying to drive at here is the Low Level Story aspect of gameplay intermixing with the setting the high level story provides. 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.

If you strip a game down its nothing but a simple mental exercise, insert round block into round hole 4 7h3 W1n! The message, or story comes in when that block is instead a sword, and the hole is a monster that begs for that sword to be stuck into it, mix in your surrounds of a dark creepy night and suddenly your doing something completely different.

A linkies to gamedev article ++ to you!

That atleast is what I was explaining, now i'm all proud of myself for thinking of it!

Oluseyi, I dont believe we're contradicting each other at all. The message of a game needs to be interesting, and it is interesting only in as far as it relates to our lives. When the players are allowed to create and mold their own story they will be drawing off of their own experiences first and foremost. The resulting "story", depending on the freedom and ease-of-creation the player is given, will relate to the player and be enjoyable although maybe not for others. [wink]

Its also to be expected that a veteran gamer will no longer be interested in the old hat messages that game remakes carry. There really arent that many innovative ideas floating around. Mostly games are remixes of old elements with incremental improvement.

As for Counter-Strike, I think we've heard enough. [smile]

EDIT: Gyrthok, thats a great article link! I love how it mentions the "story" of Tetris. Thanks!

After reading it however, the author seems like he loses his own point. Telling the low-level story of Tetris was a powerful idea but he then goes on to detail how you could script little cutenesses into RPGs .... something completely off-topic. :(

[Edited by - Risujin on July 25, 2005 5:25:05 PM]