The idea of 'show don't tell' is constantly hammered into me as a writer but looking at some of the most sucessful linear series in recent years such as the Metal Gear series, Final Fantasy series, Knights of the Old Republic probably one of the memorable impacts upon the player is the fact that it feels like an interactive movie that draws the player in for who knows how many hours by the strength of story with giant chunks of eye candy and people spilling their thoughts on a well crafted stage, and yet people are entertained. Now my question is how (if possible) does one draw the line between the Metal Gear 15 minute codec conversations, the 30 minute FF opening cinematic and many other gross examples of pure audience exposure without the interactive element when actually writing this stuff down? It is insane to fathom 'how do they get away with this' and yet when done properlly this strategy does win gross market support and has tremendous replay value because it bonds the audience to the characters in a way many more open ended products such as Oblivion or Never Winter Nights simply alienate the player and reduce gameplay to a farm-o-thon between plot resitals to the all powerful revelation that 'providence has chosen you to fight big evil with your uniqueness'. I'm interested in peoples thoughts/approaches to these two different schools of thought.

The word gross here is what puzzles me. The definition of a gross thing is that people are disgusted by it, right? As long as players love the final fantasy games and go along with the 30 min cinematic sequences they must not be that gross.

Personally I think that writing should not be all showing and no telling, but instead a balance between the two. And I like the idea of an interactive movie.

I think the differences between the games that were given for examples were: For the Oblivion and Neverwinter games which seem to give you some open ended freedom and yet they are quite cold and they make you feel as if you are playing a game, you may sometimes meet interesting characters briefly, but you quickly have to move on to the next quest so the game to me, seems quite distant and alien.

Whereas a game like Metal Gear or Torment for instance. You have a group of friends or allies with which you see talk to and engage in. Which are like a constant and they make it more real and give you more reason to play as long as the banter is not too serious all the time. Its like your watching a conversation with two friends which makes you empathise with them and what is happening more.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
The word gross here is what puzzles me. The definition of a gross thing is that people are disgusted by it, right?

No, that's merely the slang form of the word. The adjective "gross" generally describes the bulk of something, or something bulky, or something in large quantities. This is derived from the noun "gross", which is a large unit of quantity typically used when shipping goods items in bulk. Specifically, 1 gross unit consists of 144 single units. "Gross" may also imply lack of finesse, particularly since the word "fine" is often used as an antonym to "gross" or "coarse".

So what Averous is saying is that the sheer amount of cinematics is immoderate, rather than that it is disgusting.

Well, I was mainly going a tangent about all possible usage of the word, rather than just the meaning in context. Reading through the original post, I see two uses of the word. "Gross examples", in the second paragraph probably means either "excessive examples", or it could be that Averous meant "disgusting examples" after all. "Gross market", from the third paragrath, I'd interpret as "mainstream market"

Anyway, I'm sorry, Averous, for going off topic there. It wasn't really answering your question at all.

I understand your feelings with regard to the linear-vs-open problem. About twelve or so years ago, "interactive movie" was the buzzword du jour, and almost every game to come out was built around Full-Motion Video. There were a few memorable titles from that era (Bioforge, and the Tex Murphy games come to mind), but overall most people are glad that FMV phase is over.

On the other extreme, I also find that fully open-ended games in which you wander arbitrarily can seldom hold my attention. There's usually a problem with taking extremes, and most people tend to agree that the ideal lies in a middle-path.

Personally, I think that you have it right when the story follows the game, instead of the game following the story. One of my favourite examples is System Shock. You could move around freely throughout the entire game, and you are never constrained to follow any path or storyline, but you are always under pressure from your environment, and feel too driven by your goals and circumstances to do anything arbitrarily. You do not finish the game by following a story, but in playing the game a memorable story is created.

In addition to the game following the story and the story following the game, don't forget the possibility of an interactive story game where the story IS the game. My personal favorite. And then of course there are storyless games, but this being the writing forum they're somewhat irrelevant here.

Wow see what happens when you dont check your post for a day or two, things spiral lol. Well as this topic has sort of spiraled into translating my original statements (perhaps posting after 1:00am and consuming large quantities of rum does actually impede my reasoning?) I shall clarify for the sake of this noble debate:

1. Open ended vs linear conatin two very distinct differences in approach.

-Open ended makes the story your story, you are the hero and often leads to a rather generic playing experience while trying to maintain the illusion that the player is actually making their own choices (points at Oblivion).

-Linear story telling tells a single story, you absorb the role of a character and explore through their eyes. There is no real option for player choice in regards to plot as it has all been crafted to funnel the player down a very specific path with very specific results (points at Metal Gear Solid).

There are pros and cons to both but those would be my biggest differences between the two. In recent years the market has proven strong audience reaction to both forms of story telling as long as they know roughly what they are getting into from the start. (much division in the Neverwinter community atm as the sequal has taken a more linear focus as opposed to the very open ended original camapign)

Now my question broken down: How do you, my fellow writers approach this when actually commencing a project:
1. -Do you initially choose a style and stick to it?
2. -What are the various devices used within story telling?
3. -How do you blend the narrative plot slabs into the story such as large codec conversations and long cinematics with gameplay when you write. There is a balance to be had so how do you establish it in your writing to keep your audience informed and still activly engauged?
4. -Your preferences of the two mainstream forms and why?


And the answer to the bonus secret super question 5 that seems to have provoked interest: When I used the word 'gross' in my first statements I used it in the context of metric units of measurement denoting large volumes of material, not "eww that hemopheliac vomitted on my shiny new car" kind of context because thats what often happens, large slab of passive plot, run shoot stuff, plot slab etc - I was expressing my view that there should be a more subtle blending of the elements.

Ah, that's much clearer. [smile]

1. -Do you initially choose a style and stick to it?
Yes. In general I aim to create interactive stories, but I find it easy to evaluate an idea and see whether it is more suitable to be developed in a linear or interactive way, or how it could be developed differently in both ways. It's quite similar to imagining the same game idea developed as a single player vs. multiplayer RPG, or an adventure game vs. an FPS, etc.

2. -What are the various devices used within story telling?
See my answer to 3.

3. -How do you blend the narrative plot slabs into the story such as large codec conversations and long cinematics with gameplay when you write. There is a balance to be had so how do you establish it in your writing to keep your audience informed and still actively engaged?
I design in chapters. Each chapter begins with a scene establishing cinematic, ends with a plot development cinematic, and may have others in the middle to develop characters, setting, or plot. (I don't specifically limit my cinematics but they're usually 1/2-3mins, and I would be very surprised if one ever ran more than 15 minutes.) Each chapter corresponds to a closed level of the game, and the player is prevented from progressing by a puzzle which requires fully exploring the level to solve, and has the side effect of exposing the player to all the pieces of story scattered around the level. Stylistically I keep things unified by using the same character models and animations for the cinematics, dialogue, and combat. I also make the character introspective, in other words he talks to himself to give the player information and asks himself questions to allow the player to choose what to say or do. This monologue frame makes the dialogue and lone exploring sections of the game feel more unified.

4. -Your preferences of the two mainstream forms and why?
As a player I prefer linear to open-ended because at least with linear you are sure you are getting a story and it's usually described on the back of the box; open-ended stories are all too often badly implemented as no stories, just a succession of quests.

As a writer I like both, but generally feel that linear stories are better done as books or movies/television, while open-ended stories (or for a better term, interactive stories, because my interactive game scripts have somewhat closed endings) are uniquely suited to the interactive medium of computers.

I think Averous' main point of dissension has to do with the concept of show don't tell. In writing, this is the difference between:

"It was fall, so the leaves were dead"

and

"The leaves crackled with the crisp briskness of the chilly autumn air"

You're equating a cut-scene in a game to the first example, when really the cut-scene can employ either technique; it just depends on the writer.

Honestly, people like movies, that's why they're such a big industry. Building up a story with movies (which do more showing than telling anyway) is a good way to let the player understand the back-story.