I don't know about that. Too me, story and gameplay are are almost on the same level of importance.If the story isn't good, then the game lay would have to be fucking amazing. but not vice versa. Batman Arkham City's opening where you controlled Bruce in chains drew me more into the experience. Too me if a game has a good story and characters, then it draws me into the gameplay that much more making it more fun. Final Fantasy X and XII, L.A Noire, Metal Gear Solid series are great examples.
Yeah people piss all over him. He actually pisses me off too, the way he chews gum while talking to people, his cocky expressions, and the way he poses with a lancer acting tough... That son of a *****!
@inveni0: Yes, the PS3 crowd is used to those great story centric games, like Gran Turismo 5, LBP, and Warhawk. Certainly some heavily story driven games, right?
Look, games are games--story or no story, or even a story you have to make up, if it's fun, it's fun. Don't try to classify gamers by console, it's a prejudiced we've finally begun to overcome at N4G. I play totally cross-plat--PC, PS3, and yes, 360. There may not be many story driven first party games on the 360, but you have to admit, it has some pretty decent games that you'd be missing out on if you choose to neglect it as 'different.' Story-centric games don't make a console--good games do, and both consoles have a lot of them.
His games are just fine, Twisted Metal is a testament to how gameplay is a focus over cinematics
Too many games this gen have put gameplay on the backseat to push cinematics and shiny presentation so they can wow people to buy their products. But gameplay is the utmost of importance-- this is the gaming industry. If you can't tell a game with the uniqueness of interactivity and gameplay, and if you focus so much attention on mimicking movies, then you are missing the point.
Take Battlefield 3 for example-- they tried and failed to push the story and engine so hard that so much of the BF2 features were lost when those gameplay features should have been nailed down first. The shallowness of seeing a cinematic fades away far faster than great gameplay features
"I think that it has stuffed the progress of video games, to our own peril....[I'm] not talking about video games that implement player-authored stories, where the in-game interactivity "is so compelling and engaging that the player by the very nature of playing the game ... is the story"
'Putting story before gameplay 'a waste of time' says Jaffe'..for some games
Put that title up and there wouldnt be such a furore of his words which make so much sense. Some games DONT need well crafted and solid stories. Anybody could say that and they'd be right. We aren't some type of unchanging consumer. Some days we want to play an Alan Wake or Heavy Rain and other days we want cod or street fighter xyz.
You could also argue that a great gameplay trumps great story when it comes to games BUT I personally think nothing is a waste of time if implemented correctly so im 50/50 on this one. No need to defend Jaffe like a newborn or send in the attack dogs.
Did shadow of the colossus have a great story told or was it played... thats kinda what im getting from his point
it depends on the game A game like twisted metal would obviously be more centered around the game play than story. Yet take a game like God of war and its the story that drives the game play.
And go figure...both were originally crafted by the man himself.
Yes, I may have overstepped my bounds talking about ALL PS3 owners' preferences. But for me, games from Naughty Dog trump Jaffe every time. (And not liking the way Jaffe presents himself as a person doesn't help, either.)
Is Gears of War amazing mechanically? Yes and no. The game is limited. Unreal 3 is a better game mechanically to gears of war believe it or not. I agree that both go hand in hand but I cannot get over clunky unresponsive controls. I don't mind non realistic animations that just look cool like DMC, GOW and NG. The mechanics in the GOW are near perfect and the game is perfectly playable in a button mash style or more methodical. Unreal 3 needed a better story of the great gameplay that was there. I had a ton of fun in Gears 1 and that is the only game that played extensively in the series and never will forget the graphical leap into the next generation at the time. No jumping, climbing ect... Uncharted nailed 3rd person gameplay. The game has alot of set piece moments and exhilaration but when it comes down to mechanics Uncharted is tight. Gears is great though especially at the time it came out.
I do completely understand where Jaffe is coming from with this. Some of my favorite games of all time (Super Mario Galaxy, Unreal Tournament) have ZERO story. I still play them like no other. I guess I could throw Twisted metal on that list as well, because story or not it looks like we will all get the chaos that we have been waiting for.
-IMOO story and gameplay are like hands and feet, different but important to be whole. take Just Caus 2 for example incredible gameplay but no interesting story to keep you going on.
-GOW1 was a game with a great story that blended gameplay and story telling and it was made by Jaffe so give him credit for that.
Contrary to comments above Jaffe obviously cannot talk and chew gum at the same time. Nor, as he recently admitted, can he live in one location while working on a game in another. It seems Jaffe is capable of only thinking about one thing at a time.
There are some games where story takes precedence, and others where it is about the gameplay.
But Jaffe is nearsighted if he believes gaming is best served by a case of one or the other. Strike that, he is actually in favor of just action. One can draw their own deductions about the fact he obviously sees gaming as best suited for fun yet shallow entertainment. It isn't.
Some action movies can be fun but they are vapid and not the sort of thing most people can watch over and over again. The same can be said of story heavy dramas in that most people cannot rewatch the same movie over and over ad nauseum. The movies with which you can do this are most often the ones that have found the way to strike the balance between the story and the action.
And if anyone doesn't believe the two features can co-exist in gaming, all one need do is say two words.
Naughty Dog.
And never mind the thing for which he is most remembered isn't gameplay but rather the story creation of a certain very angry character. Ironic, to say the least.
that makes no sense. story is crucial, if the story is execrable wtf would pique my interest to continue? i dont care how good gameplay is if theres no incentive to continue. pay $60 for gameplay lol? really?
ill admit, i played games with great stories but bad gamplay but never the other-way-around.
Your incentive to continue IS the gameplay. Going by your logic, games like Tetris, Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero, Super Mario, hell even Call of Duty (Yes it has a story, but most would agree that it's poor and many wouldn't even know what it was because it's all about the MP), shouldn't interest you or millions of others, but they do. If a gameplay element is engrossing enough, you don't need a story at all. Your incentive will be different, it'll be a high score, or a new unlockable, or a level up, but you'll still have plenty of incentive to play.
@Killerhog imo gameplay is more important then story. My ultimate example would be Halo:Reach. The Story was the stupidest I had ever seen in a Halo game.... BUT the gameplay is so fun that it kept me playing it online and eventually finishing the campaign just for the fun of it.
Majority of the games you and Kushan mention are progression type games that doesn't involve story (like MAG and GCI). Games like twisted metal and street fighter involve story to explain the characters background and purpose to build up a world within the game. I play single-player first then multiplayer or go back-and-forth between them like my bro.
I guess this new generation is all about multiplayer and gameplay. Might as well develope games with empty white spaces and bland characters and add gameplay.
By the way gameplay is how a game runs/works. I don't care about gameplay as long as its playable. Cod, no thanks, because both story and gameplay suck. I can tolerate bad controls if the story is good and worth playing, but not if the story is shit. I'm not gonna pay $60 for gameplay/multiplayer (if it's not a progression game).
@killerhog You're forgetting games like Bayonetta, DMC, and Ninja Gaiden where the stories are horrible but the games are just fun. Then there's Demon's Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, and many other examples of completely minimalism when it comes to story but focus heavily on gameplay. These are some of the best single player experiences there are and they have no story. I would prefer to have both a great story and great gameplay but when choosing one or the other is gameplay is far more important. The other side of the argument would be something like Enslaved. Heavy focus on story and gameplay that isn't really all that fun. I couldn't make it through the game even though I wanted to for the story. It wasn't broken or anything I was just completely bored with it. I would say that the more is story focused on over gameplay the worse the game is but there's the exception with Heavy Rain. The reason I didn't get bored with it is that the gameplay though not all that amazing was woven so deeply in the story I was focused on nothing but the story the whole time. It is truly no more than an interactive movie and that works for it.
IMO when I first got it, I thought the gameplay was horrible playing it for the first 20 min....A year later I decided to play it before I traded in and playing it was a wise choice.
Any and all games should have gameplay come first as a main priority. I enjoy cut scenes here and there but I dont pay good money for a movie. Games like red dead redemption and bayonetta does a great job with gameplay AND keeping a good story in the mix.
FF XII has great gameplay imo but the characters and story were subpar for an FF game. I'd still rate the game 9.5/10 because it had a huge amount of content and very enjoyable and challenging combat.
People blow what Jaffe says out of proportion. I believe the gameplay should come first, but story is important in many games, and really makes the difference between a fun game and an unforgettable game.
Hey, Lost Odyssey was awesome. I cried a few times at the stories offered up from Kaim's memories. And I enjoyed the gameplay options that came with the immortals being paired up on the field with the humans.
Whats wrong with interactive cinematic experiences, those are the types of experiences ND wants to create, afterall. Hell, I loved the beginning of Arkham city becuase it kept me engaged, it wasn't about "being" Batman, I was with Batman. A cutscene would have ruined that for me, breaking immersion and halting momentum. We have, at our finger tips, the most intimate medium, one that depends on the person with the controller in his hands to tell the story.
If Jaffe had it his way, I would have never experienced Chapter 18 of Uncharted 3. The twenty or so minutes set in the Rub' al Khali are my personal favorite moments with a controller in hand, offering the presentation of cinema but the intimacy of this medium. Once again, a cutscene would have ruined that level of connection to the events and characters. I would like to think that I am advanced enough not to need something that makes me respond with a "Wow! Cool!" every five seconds. While there are moments that I do just want to sit back and switch my brain off, there are other moments when I like to be provoked with thought and complexity.
I am not saying there shouldn't be "pure games" out there, hell, I love them myself. I just don't think that they should push out experiences others want. Is it so dangerous to have two experiences in one medium?
Come on Jaffe, things have to rise above their station, if not for this would you not still be Birmingham, Alabama?
Just paraphrasing his stance. He criticizes the medium's ability to evoke emotion, a concpet that is clearly identified as part of the medium's weakest attribute/characteristic. We know this, we acknowledge this and people, like ND, are working to fix that. Writing must and will get better. I just know we cannot leave the story telling of one medium up to another. The interactive medium has the ability to tell the deepest stories and offer the deepest experiences out there, it just needs to perfect the formula. Unlike books, movies, or comics, we can experience true character connection via immersion. We aren't just the characters, we are with them every step of the journey.
Jaffe should go out and make the experiences he wants to make, I am sure they will have quality. I just don't think he should be telling the medium as a whole how to run itself.
"If Jaffe had it his way, I would have never experienced Chapter 18 of Uncharted 3. The twenty or so minutes set in the Rub' al Khali are my personal favorite moments with a controller in hand, offering the presentation of cinema but the intimacy of this medium."
You mean the unskippable section where you push your analog stick forwards and watch what is essentially a cinematic? O.o
Also, Jaffe is talking about story, and guess what, ND didn't give priority to the story in Uncharted either. They thought of cool set-pieces first, and then strung the story around that.
As opposed to just flipping the pages of a book? Regardless of the action that is the vehicle into the story, you are still involved. It doesn't matter how I interact with the story, as long as I interact with it. ND has experimented with dynamic camera angles in the past and UC3 showed they are still willing to do so. Yeah, it could have been a cutscene, but it would have lost the attachment to the experience. Simply watching something is not the same as being involved. It was intimate, personal, more so than any film has done so in ages.
He is not just talking about story, he is talking about it's implementation into gameplay, how you make gameplay more than just filler. Hell, I loved the beginning of Half-Life 2 and Arkham City. I like Uncharted 3 more than UC2 because there was more than just action sequences, offering more interactivity. The best stories create a world that we want to explore beyond what is seen, a world to interact with. This medium offers that and more. Film is too limited a medium to offer what others think this medium shouldn't.
To "just make a movie" results in a bastardization of the original concept contained in 2:30 to 3:00 hours. I don't want a condensed experience for the sake of the medium it is offered in. Take a serious look at this medium, it has the potential to embody the strengths of all and the weaknesses of neither.
When it comes down to it, I would take scripted and context sensitive movements over cutscenes anyday. The medium has matured and it should continue to do so by offering all types of experiences. You might have been disappointed by UC3, I wasn't. I knew what they were going to offer and enjoyed every second of it. I am not going to criticize Twisted Metal for not being something I wanted it to be, it is afterall, very much a "game" as Jaffe has made it clear. ND set out to create "interactive cinematic experience," as Amy Hennig puts it. While story might have not been their focus, immersion was, and I am going to respect that.
If a creator wants to tell me his/her story, a story I am interested in, they have that right. If I don't want to experience their story or any story at all, I have the right not to purchase it. But I am not going to fault someone for giving me the "designer's narrative" if that is what I want to experience.
"Take a serious look at this medium, it has the potential to embody the strengths of all and the weaknesses of neither."
Nothing ever works like that. Some weaknesses are inherent in the route you take. In this case, you can either give the player freedom, and sacrifice story, or shackle the player with the story through a linear game.
I don't fully agree with Jaffe since he mentioned ArkhamCity's intro, but it seems he overlooked that the sequence doubled as a tutorial, hence why it was linear and scripted.
At the same time, I only disagreed with you on the desert sequence bit. I wasn't disappointed by UC3, and that desert sequence was good on the first playthrough, but eventually, it becomes annoying mostly because the sequence is long and unskippable (to my knowledge at least). In that regards, it isn't a good implementation of interactive storytelling. This is in contrast to other sequences such as the boat or the airplane which are done correctly because, despite also being unskippable, are short and have a decent amount of interactivity. I don't feel like I am just watching a glorified cutscene when I play those sequences, but I do get that feeling in the desert part, but that's just me.
As for my actual opinion. I am fine with cut-scenes turning into scripted or contect sensitive sequences. Just as long as it's only the cutscenes that are doing that (and are skippable on multiple playthroughs), instead of bits of actual gameplay turning into linear scripted sequences.
Yeah like The Darkness 2, only 6 hours of gameplay and 2 hours of coop? The campaign is too linear and its just a rental game that's not worth $60 dollars. Heck The chronicle's of Riddick Escape From Butcher Bay(original xbox then 360) was 10 hours long with some side quest, and it was longer than The Darkness 2. Did I mention that it was from Starbeeze same developers who man The first Darkness and even that was longer!!! I really wish they never gave this game to Digital Extreme They are mediocre at making games. just look at what they did with BioShock 2 multiplayer, not what I envisioned at all. Its also Funny how Starbreeze is coming out with Syndicate same month as The Darkness 2. Syndicate is looking to outperform the Darkness 2 in both campaign and coop.
Bioshock Infinite and Hitman Absolution will blow linearity out the window with their game changing difficulty and more.
I liked 2's story, but 3's wasn't questionable, it was horrible. The whole game was about climbing mount Olympus to kill Zeus. *SPOILERS*
You needed to get Pandora's box in GoW1 just to kill Ares, then Zeus took that power away in GoW2, so you had to go back in time to get the blade of Olympus to kill Zues. In GoW3, you killed... what.. 5 gods? without much trouble. When you killed Zeus, it turns out you didn't get the power to turn into a giant, instead you got hope...
I'd have to agree with Jaffe. Another example to go along with the opening of Arkham city would be Uncharted 3, most notably the 2nd and 18th chapter where you tail Sully as young Drake and where you slowly walk Drake through the desert. Those sections were boring from a gameplay standpoint and kind of hurt the replayability factor for me.
I must respectfully disagree, Chapter 18 blew my mind and is the finest experience I have had with a controller in my hand. I can understand someone not caring for it if they were looking for something that is a "game," but the desert offered a depth to the character, story, and medium that I had never seen before. You might consider them boring, I consider them great. Clearly we were looking for something different in the medium. And honestly, I think we both can enjoy what it has to offer.
So, after reading the whole article, it seems to me he was referring to the gameplay suffering for the sake of story. Looks like people are just wanting to have something to complain about when it comes to Jaffe saying ANYTHING.
I'd put God of War's story before it's gameplay. I think Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta have much better gameplay but I much prefer the GOW series because it has an amazing story and fun but not amazing gameplay.
I think the only thing holding NG and Bayonetta from being much better games than the GOW series is their bad stories.
Not the stories alone.. How about production values, puzzles , music and the epicness of the boss fights.. Nothing in NG and Bayonetta feels as epic as the first 45 min of GOW3..
He should of used Call of Duty Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3 for explain. Batman Arkham City had way more gameplay. Black Ops had gameplay, but too many times the game take control instead of you. The same could be said about Modern Warfare 3.
Gameplay is great but story is probably the best things about games IMO. If you cant make both the story and the gameplay good, you are probably not a good video game creator. the Metal Gear Solid series is one of the best, it has great gameplay and an amazing story, Kojima is a genius...
Jaffe has a point. Minecraft anyone? Street Fighter had no story, Mario had no real story to begin with, Tetris for fucks sake, Guitar Hero, Madden. Those are like the highest selling franchises. If they had story, they'd be better, but focus gameplay first. Make the game badass to play then build your story around it. Portal compared to Portal 2 is a great example of that.
Jaffe stated that games have traditionally never been about expressing a story. I think part of his concerns are way people would choose to make games that focus more on the story when games are the worse way to tell a story.
Most of the amazing story elements that games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted have are heavily inspired by film. So I think Jaffe is asking, why not just make a film? Remember, he uses the opening sequence of Batman and Skyrim as the examples. Batman took control away from the player, made them run through a kind of dull and pointless sequence for the sake of story as opposed to experience. Skyrim however never stops giving players the experience during the story.
To clarify, in Batman, if the player wanted to fight before breaking loose, they couldn't. The game didn't allow it because the story would have been ruined. In Skyrim, if you're following someone and then decided you didn't like them, you could at any time turn on them.
Also, Jaffe never said that stories in games couldn't be good, but that he believes that designers should never compromise the gameplay, for the sake of story.
A truely exceptional game creates a compelling attachment to the characters/story, has awesome gameplay, and uses graphics and sound to tie everything together.
Weighting any of the four over top of each other is a disservice to the game and results in a less than perfect experience.
I agree with Jaffe. Story in a video game IS important, but it shouldn't ever come before gameplay. Gameplay first, story second. If it's fun, it's fun and that alone will move you trough. Games like Demon/Dark Souls, Just Cause 2, Ninja Gaiden, Vanquish, Borderlands, Diablo, Dragon Quest VIII, Battlefield, Phantasy Star Online, Ghost Recon's, and many others that don't come to mind right now weren't games praised for their story, and in my experience, none of those were anything short of amazing games. If one have to choose, I'd say go for gameplay. If one were competent enough to equalize the equation, tough, all the better.
I disagree that the gameplay in FF VI and VII are somehow dated. It is a particular style of game that just doesn't happen to be as popular as it once was. It is still to me and many others a very fun and engaging style of gameplay.
Though I do agree that in RPGs the story is absolutely vital to the experience.
"I disagree that the gameplay in FF VI and VII are somehow dated."
VII isn't all that dated. Nostalgia is a bi%%h but still you see that things like too long summon cutscenes
VI is super dated and i don't mean hard. It's just there isn't any deep mechanics in that game. I'm currently playing on my PSP and battles feels like chore. I play it mainly for a story.
@ nvm1987
"Tetris still seems pretty popular these days"
It depends what you call tetris. Lumines looks like one but it isn't tetris it looks somewhat like tetris.
Normal tetris is popular but popular also are barbie dolls and tamagothi.
popular=\= memorable.
As of Story vs Gameplay. I mean story where it applies not in every game.
MGS series weren't be as memorable if story wasn't somewhat memorable. And still that game has awasome gameplay :)
Jaffe needs to shut the fuck up. He has been getting by on GOW for too long now. since he knows so much why doesn't make a good game. You sony boys worship the ground he walks on for reasons that are not quite clear. This guy is a fucking loser who needs to get some pussy.
This is a series that focuses on character-driven narrative, where the player makes choices that span the series and have wide-ranging effects on the next two games in the series, and combines it with the popular third-person shooter set-up along with several number-crunching RPG aspects. This is a series that has cemented BioWare as a creator of games that not only engage our trigger finger but make us think about the choices we are being asked to make because those choices could come back to bite us later on, unlike Twisted Metal or God of War, where the only objective was to push forward with no thought given to how the player felt about the events s/he was being forced into.
I'm not taking anything away from two series that are very popular and have their own followings. I myself thought that the God of War series was a great addition to the annals of gaming, but I didn't like where I knew the series was heading in the first game. I knew this series wouldn't end happily. It was a Roaring Rampage of Revenge for Kratos and nothing else.
Mass Effect is not like that. You have the choice to make the galaxy a darker place by doing the selfish, humans-first things, or make it a brighter place by putting others' needs ahead of your own wants. And that's on top of stellar gameplay and great visuals. So, fuck you for saying that sacrificing gameplay for story is a horrible thing that's holding back the industry. Not everyone likes a little story with their bloody vengeance. Some people want more substance.
That's not what he's talking about. Mass Effect integrates story into their gameplay by having choices that need to be made. Look at the examples he gives.
I don't know why it has to be one way or the other for everyone. There are games that have benefited from minimalistic narrative and games that have succeeded solely for their narrative. It's all a matter of how the game is designed.
Story > gameplay for me, I have finished a lot of games with bad gameplay because the story was awesome, and i still enjoyed them, sometimes even more that games with good gameplay.
At the end, i just want to hear a good story. (but i still love to play games with only gameplay between them, to relax.
Sometimes you want to see a wonderful story, and sometimes you want to blow up stuff, they are different, you cant say one is better that the other, or that one of the 2 is a "waste"
Everyone knows it was better because of the gameplay and it still had story but it did not overdo it like MGS4 which was just a snorefest in the cutscenes were as snake eaters cutscenes were of the perfect length.
I think you're referring to CS:Zero's DeletedScenes? It was the actual single-player missions.
Yea, it was pretty generic, but the chapters are unconnected. I actually tried playing it recently and laughed because it felt like I was playing yet another modern generic military shooter but then I realized the game came out in 2004.
Gaming is a great medium to tell great stories. I do not agree with david jaffee on his views that story in a game is a waste of time. Balance is key by making a game with great story along with great gameplay that is awesome. Minecraft is a game were the gamer can create their own story. Games like Uncharted prove how to tell a great story interwined with gameplay by keeping in-game cutscenes as part as moving the story forward but kept all the mayhem and explosions as gameplay. That is were games should be headed. You see too many games use in-game or cgi cutscenes for explosions and mayhem which is an utter mistake due to the player gets detached from the game and loses focus of the story plus seeing all the mayhem but not part of it is a disservice to the medium.
I agree completely. Even games with little to no story can be incredible funny like Mario games, Rhythim Paradise, Little Big Planet, Modnation Racers, Lumines... I tought it was a basic point of game design for years in every console. Plus, when I want a good story, I play a good handheld RPG, or a graphic adventure.
Too me if a game has a good story and characters, then it draws me into the gameplay that much more making it more fun.
Final Fantasy X and XII, L.A Noire, Metal Gear Solid series are great examples.
Also, @LX-General-Kaos, Cliffy B works for 360. Games are different on that system. The PS3 crowd is used to story-centric games. It's what we like.
He does make really good games though.
Look, games are games--story or no story, or even a story you have to make up, if it's fun, it's fun. Don't try to classify gamers by console, it's a prejudiced we've finally begun to overcome at N4G. I play totally cross-plat--PC, PS3, and yes, 360. There may not be many story driven first party games on the 360, but you have to admit, it has some pretty decent games that you'd be missing out on if you choose to neglect it as 'different.' Story-centric games don't make a console--good games do, and both consoles have a lot of them.
His games are just fine, Twisted Metal is a testament to how gameplay is a focus over cinematics
Too many games this gen have put gameplay on the backseat to push cinematics and shiny presentation so they can wow people to buy their products. But gameplay is the utmost of importance-- this is the gaming industry. If you can't tell a game with the uniqueness of interactivity and gameplay, and if you focus so much attention on mimicking movies, then you are missing the point.
Take Battlefield 3 for example-- they tried and failed to push the story and engine so hard that so much of the BF2 features were lost when those gameplay features should have been nailed down first. The shallowness of seeing a cinematic fades away far faster than great gameplay features
"I think that it has stuffed the progress of video games, to our own peril....[I'm] not talking about video games that implement player-authored stories, where the in-game interactivity "is so compelling and engaging that the player by the very nature of playing the game ... is the story"
I could not agree more with him.
Put that title up and there wouldnt be such a furore of his words which make so much sense. Some games DONT need well crafted and solid stories. Anybody could say that and they'd be right. We aren't some type of unchanging consumer. Some days we want to play an Alan Wake or Heavy Rain and other days we want cod or street fighter xyz.
You could also argue that a great gameplay trumps great story when it comes to games BUT I personally think nothing is a waste of time if implemented correctly so im 50/50 on this one. No need to defend Jaffe like a newborn or send in the attack dogs.
Did shadow of the colossus have a great story told or was it played... thats kinda what im getting from his point
A game like twisted metal would obviously be more centered around the game play than story. Yet take a game like God of war and its the story that drives the game play.
And go figure...both were originally crafted by the man himself.
-GOW1 was a game with a great story that blended gameplay and story telling and it was made by Jaffe so give him credit for that.
There are some games where story takes precedence, and others where it is about the gameplay.
But Jaffe is nearsighted if he believes gaming is best served by a case of one or the other. Strike that, he is actually in favor of just action. One can draw their own deductions about the fact he obviously sees gaming as best suited for fun yet shallow entertainment. It isn't.
Some action movies can be fun but they are vapid and not the sort of thing most people can watch over and over again. The same can be said of story heavy dramas in that most people cannot rewatch the same movie over and over ad nauseum. The movies with which you can do this are most often the ones that have found the way to strike the balance between the story and the action.
And if anyone doesn't believe the two features can co-exist in gaming, all one need do is say two words.
Naughty Dog.
And never mind the thing for which he is most remembered isn't gameplay but rather the story creation of a certain very angry character. Ironic, to say the least.
ill admit, i played games with great stories but bad gamplay but never the other-way-around.
Of course... putting gameplay before story is ANOTHER awful way to approach game-design.
Both elements are (or should be) intrinsic to each other, and should be major focuses of development from day 1.
Related video
Oh and what about the mario games lol ;)
In a case like the up and coming Twisted Metal... I have no idea what the storyline is, and frankly have never cared... I just love the gameplay.
It's too genral a statement on a broad subject.
I guess this new generation is all about multiplayer and gameplay. Might as well develope games with empty white spaces and bland characters and add gameplay.
By the way gameplay is how a game runs/works. I don't care about gameplay as long as its playable. Cod, no thanks, because both story and gameplay suck. I can tolerate bad controls if the story is good and worth playing, but not if the story is shit. I'm not gonna pay $60 for gameplay/multiplayer (if it's not a progression game).
The other side of the argument would be something like Enslaved. Heavy focus on story and gameplay that isn't really all that fun. I couldn't make it through the game even though I wanted to for the story. It wasn't broken or anything I was just completely bored with it. I would say that the more is story focused on over gameplay the worse the game is but there's the exception with Heavy Rain. The reason I didn't get bored with it is that the gameplay though not all that amazing was woven so deeply in the story I was focused on nothing but the story the whole time. It is truly no more than an interactive movie and that works for it.
"where the in-game interactivity "is so compelling and engaging that the player by the very nature of playing the game ... is the story""
Yep this is how games should be.
IMO when I first got it, I thought the gameplay was horrible playing it for the first 20 min....A year later I decided to play it before I traded in and playing it was a wise choice.
It changed my view.
FF stories are going downhill
But then one of my fave games of all time, Dark Souls, had almost zilch in the way of story and I loved it.
https://twitter.com/#!/davi...
Not interactive novels or cinematic experiences.
If Jaffe had it his way, I would have never experienced Chapter 18 of Uncharted 3. The twenty or so minutes set in the Rub' al Khali are my personal favorite moments with a controller in hand, offering the presentation of cinema but the intimacy of this medium. Once again, a cutscene would have ruined that level of connection to the events and characters. I would like to think that I am advanced enough not to need something that makes me respond with a "Wow! Cool!" every five seconds. While there are moments that I do just want to sit back and switch my brain off, there are other moments when I like to be provoked with thought and complexity.
I am not saying there shouldn't be "pure games" out there, hell, I love them myself. I just don't think that they should push out experiences others want. Is it so dangerous to have two experiences in one medium?
Come on Jaffe, things have to rise above their station, if not for this would you not still be Birmingham, Alabama?
And different strokes for diff folks.
Jaffe should go out and make the experiences he wants to make, I am sure they will have quality. I just don't think he should be telling the medium as a whole how to run itself.
You mean the unskippable section where you push your analog stick forwards and watch what is essentially a cinematic? O.o
Also, Jaffe is talking about story, and guess what, ND didn't give priority to the story in Uncharted either. They thought of cool set-pieces first, and then strung the story around that.
As opposed to just flipping the pages of a book? Regardless of the action that is the vehicle into the story, you are still involved. It doesn't matter how I interact with the story, as long as I interact with it. ND has experimented with dynamic camera angles in the past and UC3 showed they are still willing to do so. Yeah, it could have been a cutscene, but it would have lost the attachment to the experience. Simply watching something is not the same as being involved. It was intimate, personal, more so than any film has done so in ages.
He is not just talking about story, he is talking about it's implementation into gameplay, how you make gameplay more than just filler. Hell, I loved the beginning of Half-Life 2 and Arkham City. I like Uncharted 3 more than UC2 because there was more than just action sequences, offering more interactivity. The best stories create a world that we want to explore beyond what is seen, a world to interact with. This medium offers that and more. Film is too limited a medium to offer what others think this medium shouldn't.
To "just make a movie" results in a bastardization of the original concept contained in 2:30 to 3:00 hours. I don't want a condensed experience for the sake of the medium it is offered in. Take a serious look at this medium, it has the potential to embody the strengths of all and the weaknesses of neither.
When it comes down to it, I would take scripted and context sensitive movements over cutscenes anyday. The medium has matured and it should continue to do so by offering all types of experiences. You might have been disappointed by UC3, I wasn't. I knew what they were going to offer and enjoyed every second of it. I am not going to criticize Twisted Metal for not being something I wanted it to be, it is afterall, very much a "game" as Jaffe has made it clear. ND set out to create "interactive cinematic experience," as Amy Hennig puts it. While story might have not been their focus, immersion was, and I am going to respect that.
If a creator wants to tell me his/her story, a story I am interested in, they have that right. If I don't want to experience their story or any story at all, I have the right not to purchase it. But I am not going to fault someone for giving me the "designer's narrative" if that is what I want to experience.
Nothing ever works like that. Some weaknesses are inherent in the route you take.
In this case, you can either give the player freedom, and sacrifice story, or shackle the player with the story through a linear game.
I don't fully agree with Jaffe since he mentioned ArkhamCity's intro, but it seems he overlooked that the sequence doubled as a tutorial, hence why it was linear and scripted.
At the same time, I only disagreed with you on the desert sequence bit.
I wasn't disappointed by UC3, and that desert sequence was good on the first playthrough, but eventually, it becomes annoying mostly because the sequence is long and unskippable (to my knowledge at least). In that regards, it isn't a good implementation of interactive storytelling.
This is in contrast to other sequences such as the boat or the airplane which are done correctly because, despite also being unskippable, are short and have a decent amount of interactivity.
I don't feel like I am just watching a glorified cutscene when I play those sequences, but I do get that feeling in the desert part, but that's just me.
As for my actual opinion. I am fine with cut-scenes turning into scripted or contect sensitive sequences. Just as long as it's only the cutscenes that are doing that (and are skippable on multiple playthroughs), instead of bits of actual gameplay turning into linear scripted sequences.
Bioshock Infinite and Hitman Absolution will blow linearity out the window with their game changing difficulty and more.
GoW 2 & 3's stories are questionable though.
Thought you can tell the different ways of telling a story with all three directors.
You needed to get Pandora's box in GoW1 just to kill Ares, then Zeus took that power away in GoW2, so you had to go back in time to get the blade of Olympus to kill Zues. In GoW3, you killed... what.. 5 gods? without much trouble. When you killed Zeus, it turns out you didn't get the power to turn into a giant, instead you got hope...
In short, GoW3 screwed up GoW1.
I think the only thing holding NG and Bayonetta from being much better games than the GOW series is their bad stories.
Most of the amazing story elements that games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted have are heavily inspired by film. So I think Jaffe is asking, why not just make a film? Remember, he uses the opening sequence of Batman and Skyrim as the examples. Batman took control away from the player, made them run through a kind of dull and pointless sequence for the sake of story as opposed to experience. Skyrim however never stops giving players the experience during the story.
To clarify, in Batman, if the player wanted to fight before breaking loose, they couldn't. The game didn't allow it because the story would have been ruined. In Skyrim, if you're following someone and then decided you didn't like them, you could at any time turn on them.
Also, Jaffe never said that stories in games couldn't be good, but that he believes that designers should never compromise the gameplay, for the sake of story.
Weighting any of the four over top of each other is a disservice to the game and results in a less than perfect experience.
It's thanks to story games like FFVI are berable now.
FFVII would't be considered by fans "the best FF" if it didn't had good story.
What i mean YOU NEED BOTH to create masterpiece.
But creating story above gameplay can make your game immortal.
See Planescape Torment.
But if you have both you have a masterpiece.
I think some games rely on their story and if they have a shit one it degrades from the game.
Ultimately it all comes down to the gameplay, thus the reason we all play games.
For example, Just Cause 2, story is clearly not taken seriously, gameplay however...FUCK ME!
Though I do agree that in RPGs the story is absolutely vital to the experience.
"I disagree that the gameplay in FF VI and VII are somehow dated."
VII isn't all that dated. Nostalgia is a bi%%h but still you see that things like too long summon cutscenes
VI is super dated and i don't mean hard. It's just there isn't any deep mechanics in that game. I'm currently playing on my PSP and battles feels like chore. I play it mainly for a story.
@ nvm1987
"Tetris still seems pretty popular these days"
It depends what you call tetris. Lumines looks like one but it isn't tetris it looks somewhat like tetris.
Normal tetris is popular but popular also are barbie dolls and tamagothi.
popular=\= memorable.
As of Story vs Gameplay. I mean story where it applies not in every game.
MGS series weren't be as memorable if story wasn't somewhat memorable. And still that game has awasome gameplay :)
This is a series that focuses on character-driven narrative, where the player makes choices that span the series and have wide-ranging effects on the next two games in the series, and combines it with the popular third-person shooter set-up along with several number-crunching RPG aspects. This is a series that has cemented BioWare as a creator of games that not only engage our trigger finger but make us think about the choices we are being asked to make because those choices could come back to bite us later on, unlike Twisted Metal or God of War, where the only objective was to push forward with no thought given to how the player felt about the events s/he was being forced into.
I'm not taking anything away from two series that are very popular and have their own followings. I myself thought that the God of War series was a great addition to the annals of gaming, but I didn't like where I knew the series was heading in the first game. I knew this series wouldn't end happily. It was a Roaring Rampage of Revenge for Kratos and nothing else.
Mass Effect is not like that. You have the choice to make the galaxy a darker place by doing the selfish, humans-first things, or make it a brighter place by putting others' needs ahead of your own wants. And that's on top of stellar gameplay and great visuals. So, fuck you for saying that sacrificing gameplay for story is a horrible thing that's holding back the industry. Not everyone likes a little story with their bloody vengeance. Some people want more substance.
Related video
At the end, i just want to hear a good story. (but i still love to play games with only gameplay between them, to relax.
Sometimes you want to see a wonderful story, and sometimes you want to blow up stuff, they are different, you cant say one is better that the other, or that one of the 2 is a "waste"
But you can like one more that the other.
Story vs gameplay = books vs Morgan freeman.
MGS3:Snake Eater > MGS4
Everyone knows it was better because of the gameplay and it still had story but it did not overdo it like MGS4 which was just a snorefest in the cutscenes were as snake eaters cutscenes were of the perfect length.
/end
but, on the other hand
Counter-Strike with a story might not be as addictive, brilliant and fun to play..
I guess balance is the key. They are both very important for gaming.
Yea, it was pretty generic, but the chapters are unconnected.
I actually tried playing it recently and laughed because it felt like I was playing yet another modern generic military shooter but then I realized the game came out in 2004.
Cheers Gamers & Happy Gaming!