Just to make a point off the last comment: Hitchcock DID originally have an ending to The Birds, but decided to leave it ambiguous on purpose. The story was intended to be more about the human interaction, with the attacking birds acting as a catalyst.
I do agree, however, that simply leaving a story unresolved for no discernable reason would only piss gamers off. I can see why you might want to experiment with it, but from a practical standpoint the natural assumption people would make is that you simply didn''t know HOW to wrap up the storyline.
Leaving story unresolved.
I found the escalating attack of the birds and the panic of the characters to be very entertaining to watch and wasn''t very upset about the story. In fact, I think it added to the mystery of The Birds. It reminded me of some of my best "nightmares".
In order to make it work you will need to build the "story" a bit differently than you would build a game with a clear ending. Somehow you need to make the final explanation unnecessary for your game. It seems difficult, but in a way, it can also be a good thing for your game as you cannot rely too much on the most usual way of telling a story.
In order to make it work you will need to build the "story" a bit differently than you would build a game with a clear ending. Somehow you need to make the final explanation unnecessary for your game. It seems difficult, but in a way, it can also be a good thing for your game as you cannot rely too much on the most usual way of telling a story.
Author
quote:
I feel the danger in that is an unresolved story could be the sole reason an otherwise good game bombs. You have to do it in a good way or else it will clearly seem pointless. Personally, i don''t think it''s worth taking that risk.
Consider the number of succesful games with no story or little of any story, I don''t see why a diffrent story approach wouldn''t work.
quote:
My only question is to why is the story left unresolved? What is the point in doing this? If it''s purley for experimental purposes and you have the resources and the time, by all means move forward. I just don''t see it being well recieved and it would make for a short game, if the scenario you present here , were how the story unfolded?
By leaving the story unresolved it makes the story solely about the events that unfold in the game. It shifts the focus from player centered universe to a play in the universe. The example I gave would be for a short a game but that doesn''t mean at an unresolved story can''t work for any other game. For instance rather then an rpg being about a lone hero going off to defeat the insane king threating to destroy the world. The rpg could instead be about the events of one characters life during that time.
People seem to think leaving the story unresolved would make for a bad game. Put let me ask you this, When playing a game that takes place in WWII do you get pissed off that you don''t defeat the nazi and win the war?
Rather then having a story focousing on some world changing plot, an unresolved story focouses on characters and interaction since they are not directly involed in the events changing the world.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave
quote:People seem to think leaving the story unresolved would make for a bad game. Put let me ask you this, When playing a game that takes place in WWII do you get pissed off that you don''t defeat the nazi and win the war?
Poor example; people playing a WWII game are already familiar with the basics of the overall story. But I get your meaning. I don''t agree necessarily that people are saying it would make a bad game; in my case I''m voicing a concern that you risk alienating the player.
In an rpg, a large number of gamers (I won''t pigeon-hole myself by saying "most") expect a story. Whether the story makes a whole of sense is a different issue. The player may be thrust into the middle of an ongoing plot, but part of the reason they play is to discover the WHY of their character''s situation. You''re taking that away from them - which may not be a bad thing, if done so that the player still feels a sense of satisfaction.
I can already see the gamer at the end of your game example, seeing their character sitting on a bus on the way home while the credits roll, saying "What the F*K! that''s it?! Where''s the wrap-up? Why the hell did I just go through all that?!"
One of my favorite arcade style games was "Loaded"; I was addicted to it, to the point where my friends were concerned for my mental health (giggling and cackling while playing a game based on escaping from an insane asylum - not a good idea.) The premise? You''re in an insane asylum. You want to escape. You''re a badass. Everyone else is trying to stop you, including the other crazy inmates. Carnage ensues.
I could have cared less WHY I was there, or why the other patients were trying to stop me, or who built the facility. It was a shooter, pure action. I didn''t need a story, just a setting. Now: translate the same game concept to an RPG, and my rationale changes. Why am I there? Why are these people trying to keep me in there? Where am I, anyway? Who runs this place? How do I get out?
Same game. Different design. Different mentality.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
