I think you're both write. (HA-HAAAAA! hahahahahaha.... god I'm funny)
Looks like simply two different apporaches to the same problem, again, Estok thinking that his way is the only way. To me, it looks like, Estok's approach is made more for one of those new age, 3D, 3rd person perspective run around hack-and slash adventures.
Sunandshadow's approach looks more like those nostalgic top-down anime style RPG's like Suikoden 2(drOOOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOoolls remembering -that- brilliant story).
There's a myriad ways of tackling any problem that presents itself, and we all work on different levels of creativity. Estok's is obviously more mechanical, SS's is more.... creative?(don't get offended, Estok, I'm not meaning that word to say she's more creative than you, I'm just struggling to find another word that describes what I'm thinking about at the moment... say... day-dreamy... free-flowing... something more intuitive rather than intellectual to it's approach. I dunno. Creative will do, if not taking it's literal meaning, and reading it's context first.)
Anyway! Grar ;)
Plotting
Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
The main story structure that I'm aware of is the one for epics, such as the one outlines in Campbell's "The Hero's Journey". Does that kind of story structure, in your opinion, apply well to games?
A quick game story discussion
In some RPGs it does, yes. But I find it more interesting when a RPG is presented in shades of gray.
In early RPGs, most villains were usually pure-evil wizards. But most game designers have found that the concept of villains that draw sympathy to themselves works extremely well. For example, what if the villain has a recurring memory that haunts him from his past and this is shown in the game? The player will feel sorry for the villain, and yet at the same time (possibly) hate him, because of all the bad things that he did throughout the game. In more modern RPGs, villains have been used to bring drama and life into the story.
Re: Story plot vs game story plot
You are not reading what I posted.
The design of a game story is not the same as the design of a story. It doesn't matter what you are happy with, I was talking about the design of the contest. The design element come into play way before the completion of the plot. This is the reason I gave the four points in the design of a game story plot. You also didn't read exactly what I wrote about the four points:
Your first point is meaningless, because what you mentioned was Flexibility. This is a hierachy for Game Story not just interactive story. Satisfying level 1 corresponds to a linear plot that is playable. A fully interactive story occurs when you get to level 4. The following showed you your misunderstanding:
It is like designing a new ball game: How do you design the rules such that each participant experiences a plot through the interaction and that a climax is guaranteed.
Since you mentioned TDM: In terms of a top-down design, these four points are of higher level than the selection of the theme. This means, before you even start using TDM on the semantics, you should identify the level of interaction you want in your game: How much do I want the story to be interactive? To what degree should the events of the story be formatted and consistent such that anticipation is created? How flexible do I want the story to be, how replayable do I want the story to be? How active should the engine be in constructing the plot? How automated or active should the engine adapt to the changing plot line?
M0
I don't care either way, because asking for help on personal novel projects that aren't even related to games is just [wrong].
Objectively, it doesn't matter what opinions the character is wavering. In the scale of a plot strand, it that point of the strand is not conveyed in the first point it is [a failure].
Technically, your plot strand is missing at least one plot point. In all similar designs, there is one addition plot point before this:
The missing plot point M0 conveys the identity and personality of the character before the change. Think any story where the character goes to a different dimension. Be it Donnie Darko or Planet of the Apes, M0 establishes the meaning of the transition. The absence of M0 is not a result of negligence, it is reflection of the lack of design depth. It is as serious as 'forgetting' to include the climax of the story. You cannot forget to mention the meaning in a plot outline. The entire outline is the manifestation of the meaning. Every single event exists to shape the meaning, to answer the prompt in M0.
When a plot outline lacks M0, it reeks. The absence of M0 is a strong indicator of [immature] design because a casual reader does not have the eye for the semantic thread. And when those reader design stories, their stories also lack the semantic thread. To them the thematics, emotions or characters are enough. But those are no where near the depth of a normal story. It is not that those other stories are better beyond expectation, it is those that lack it are incompetent, by a very large margin. It is like drawing a character with one third of it missing. It is obvious.
* The indication of its existence almost always narrow the focus of the reader. You don't need to say what the meaning is, but you need to say what topic or argument is about. For example, the beginning of the M-version of Cardinal Prime features a praying priest bleeding to death, alone, at night before the statue of Mary with a merciful smile. (Cardinal Prime is a psychodrama game involving crimes, religion (it is not about Christianity), mathematics, and networking). Story replayability is a very important feature. The plot element of the beginning scene echos through out the game as the player discovers its meaning and implications. The meaning of the story can be very different depending on how the story progresses, but all of those meanings are bound to the same initial sence. You should start to see that is it not a matter of intention, but integration.
It is not a careless decision that M0 is missing. M0 cannot be missing.
You are not reading what I posted.
Quote:Original post by sunandshadowQuote:The choice to not compete is very logical. Plot sketch is almost completely a topic of design, not writing.
I doubly disagree with this. Firstly, I believe that creating plot is at the very heart of writing, not design. The design element only comes into play when you are figuring out how to make the plot playable. Secondly, I'd be perfectly happy to compete in a design contest, I'm a designer as well as a writer. I clearly stated my reason for my decision not to compete in this round: I have no interest in creating a plot to explore the theme of revenge.
The design of a game story is not the same as the design of a story. It doesn't matter what you are happy with, I was talking about the design of the contest. The design element come into play way before the completion of the plot. This is the reason I gave the four points in the design of a game story plot. You also didn't read exactly what I wrote about the four points:
Quote:Quote:A hierachy for game story plot design:
1) Interaction - The power to provide gameplay elements
2) Anticipation - The power to allow the player to anticipate gameplay
3) Flexibility - The property that allows events to be encountered in different order
4) Mobility - The support for the engine to use the Flexibility to construct a directed observable plot.
Again, I disagree with this in several ways. First of all, if you are writing an interactive story the most important part of the interactivity is not the ORDER in which events are encountered, it is the existence of a RANGE OF ALTERNATIVE events, one of which is chosen as a result of the player's actions.
Your first point is meaningless, because what you mentioned was Flexibility. This is a hierachy for Game Story not just interactive story. Satisfying level 1 corresponds to a linear plot that is playable. A fully interactive story occurs when you get to level 4. The following showed you your misunderstanding:
Quote:Second, interactivity is not the be-all-end-all of game stories; a totally linear plot has its own virtues as the story structure for a game. Any linear plot, such as this one for a novel, can be implemented as a linear game. It wouldn't necessarily be a great game, but it certaily could be a game. Not to mention that there are non-linear novels, such as Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books or books where the action takes place over several repetitions of a time loop (like the movie Groundhog Day) which could easily be implemented as interactive stories.I don't know what you were reading. A story that does not provide opportunities for interaction is not a game story. Interactivity is defined as the 'power to provide gameplay elements', not the power to change the story. I didn't reject linear plots in the hierarchy. You are making assumptions. This is a hierarchy. Interaction is the bare minimum that a game story must achieve.
Quote:And where the heck is theme in your hierarchy? The first purpose of any plot structure is to convey an argument and conclusion about a theme - didn't you say this yourself back when you were talking about the TDM? A game plot is not fundamentally different from a story plot, it is just presented through a different medium.Why would theme be mentioned? This is not about plotting, this is about the hierarchy of complexity of game story plot. Theme is clearly independent to this complexity. Your presentation might work for normal stories, but for game stories there are these four major considerations beyond what you said. TDM I mentioned before was about the design of semantics and its presentation, this is about the complexity of interactive game stories. They resid in different level of design. A game plot is fundamentally different from a story plot. In a game plot, the player is not an audience, but a participant. The design of the game story plot is not the design of the sequence of events, but the design of the rules that induces the events.
It is like designing a new ball game: How do you design the rules such that each participant experiences a plot through the interaction and that a climax is guaranteed.
Since you mentioned TDM: In terms of a top-down design, these four points are of higher level than the selection of the theme. This means, before you even start using TDM on the semantics, you should identify the level of interaction you want in your game: How much do I want the story to be interactive? To what degree should the events of the story be formatted and consistent such that anticipation is created? How flexible do I want the story to be, how replayable do I want the story to be? How active should the engine be in constructing the plot? How automated or active should the engine adapt to the changing plot line?
M0
Quote:About Merru's confusion - a confusion such as in your example, is generally a wavering between two opinions. What two opinions do you think Merru is wavering between?
I don't care either way, because asking for help on personal novel projects that aren't even related to games is just [wrong].
Objectively, it doesn't matter what opinions the character is wavering. In the scale of a plot strand, it that point of the strand is not conveyed in the first point it is [a failure].
Technically, your plot strand is missing at least one plot point. In all similar designs, there is one addition plot point before this:
Quote:M1) Merru finds himself unexpectedly in the body of a dragon, on a planet of dragons whose language he doesn't speak.
The missing plot point M0 conveys the identity and personality of the character before the change. Think any story where the character goes to a different dimension. Be it Donnie Darko or Planet of the Apes, M0 establishes the meaning of the transition. The absence of M0 is not a result of negligence, it is reflection of the lack of design depth. It is as serious as 'forgetting' to include the climax of the story. You cannot forget to mention the meaning in a plot outline. The entire outline is the manifestation of the meaning. Every single event exists to shape the meaning, to answer the prompt in M0.
When a plot outline lacks M0, it reeks. The absence of M0 is a strong indicator of [immature] design because a casual reader does not have the eye for the semantic thread. And when those reader design stories, their stories also lack the semantic thread. To them the thematics, emotions or characters are enough. But those are no where near the depth of a normal story. It is not that those other stories are better beyond expectation, it is those that lack it are incompetent, by a very large margin. It is like drawing a character with one third of it missing. It is obvious.
Quote:I was intending that the meaning of the transition be an initial mystery which is explored throughout the progression of the story and finally explained either a bit before or a bit after the climax.You cannot see this as just an option or intention. This is the heart of a story. Without it, it is just walking fresh. The meaning of the story can be discovered in the story, but the indication of its existence* needs to be present in the first sentence.
* The indication of its existence almost always narrow the focus of the reader. You don't need to say what the meaning is, but you need to say what topic or argument is about. For example, the beginning of the M-version of Cardinal Prime features a praying priest bleeding to death, alone, at night before the statue of Mary with a merciful smile. (Cardinal Prime is a psychodrama game involving crimes, religion (it is not about Christianity), mathematics, and networking). Story replayability is a very important feature. The plot element of the beginning scene echos through out the game as the player discovers its meaning and implications. The meaning of the story can be very different depending on how the story progresses, but all of those meanings are bound to the same initial sence. You should start to see that is it not a matter of intention, but integration.
It is not a careless decision that M0 is missing. M0 cannot be missing.
Gor-Gor: We weren't even talking about the same topic. One is about story writing, one is about the consideration of gameplay in story writing. The two methods do not tackle the same problem. The things I said tackle problem beyond the consideration of sole story plotting.
Creativity favors the prepared mind. By the time you verbalize the rules of your subconscious, the rules are already integrated. You need no method or procedures, designs that satisfy the requirements come out of thin air. It becomes trivial to design semantically sound interactive stories with integrated gameplay. It is like composing music, when you no longer think about what the next note should be or to 'design' what it should be. They just come by themselves. But if the time comes, you also have the ability to evalute individual notes.
Creativity favors the prepared mind. By the time you verbalize the rules of your subconscious, the rules are already integrated. You need no method or procedures, designs that satisfy the requirements come out of thin air. It becomes trivial to design semantically sound interactive stories with integrated gameplay. It is like composing music, when you no longer think about what the next note should be or to 'design' what it should be. They just come by themselves. But if the time comes, you also have the ability to evalute individual notes.
Author
Quote:Original post by Estok
Re: Story plot vs game story plot
You are not reading what I posted.
Of course I read what you posted, I just think you're wrong. >.<
As for the M0, otherwise known as the prologue, I usually find that it is only possible to know what should be in it after writing at least the first few chapters of the actual script/story. I know vaguely that M0 ought to show Merru being a scholar playboy (his identity before the initial incident) and probably reading something about eggs or mythology, or even thinking about the lack of intimacy in his life, although that's a bit too blunt. But I don't know exactly what should go there and I didn't want to include any confusing undecided bits in the outline to make it easier to edit.
Also, for people who prefer In Medias Res beginnings, M0 would probably go later in the outline as a flashback.
[Edited by - sunandshadow on November 13, 2005 6:50:08 AM]
Again, I think you're wrong, Estok.
I don't really believe some of these games with fantastic stories were written as your style of writing, the example you produced, I forget what you called the style.
Again, I think different types of design suit different types of games. I highly doubt every composer follows the same method, the same formula for writing their music. They all have different means to founding, and finding new tunes.
And if you say this is the only way, why -can't- it be done? It makes more sense to me, that a game would be written as a plot, and the gameplay would follow to enhance and flesh out the story... all be it in a much more complicated way than say a screenplay would.
I think the gameplay should evolve from the story. LEt me remind you that, agian, I'm speaking circumstantially. For story driven games, the gameplay should evolve from the story. In action games/other style of games where the story doesn't matter, or where the gameplay -is- the focus and not the drama, then sure, whatever works best to fit the genre.
I don't really believe some of these games with fantastic stories were written as your style of writing, the example you produced, I forget what you called the style.
Again, I think different types of design suit different types of games. I highly doubt every composer follows the same method, the same formula for writing their music. They all have different means to founding, and finding new tunes.
And if you say this is the only way, why -can't- it be done? It makes more sense to me, that a game would be written as a plot, and the gameplay would follow to enhance and flesh out the story... all be it in a much more complicated way than say a screenplay would.
I think the gameplay should evolve from the story. LEt me remind you that, agian, I'm speaking circumstantially. For story driven games, the gameplay should evolve from the story. In action games/other style of games where the story doesn't matter, or where the gameplay -is- the focus and not the drama, then sure, whatever works best to fit the genre.
Re: s/s
I don't know why you are trying to counter that you didn't read what I said. In your post you said flexibility is important. That was exactly what I already said. You said that any movie can be turned into a game but introducing gameplay. That that is what I said, and that Anticipation separates those designs and those that are coherent.
My inference is that you are not fluent in semantic construction. Think about this:
1) Suppose Merru read something about eggs or mythology, and then he is suddenly in the world of dragons, this makes the plot appear very childish. This is probably the reason it wasn't included (and shouldn't be included as is). Why is it childish?
2) Think about the scholar playboy identity. That is also pretty bad considering that the original scenes had nothing suggesting that he is a playboy. So if you had put it as a prologue, it would make the meaning seemingly imposed.
3) The lack of intimacy is a better central theme, but it still doesn't fit the situation. If he wants intimacy so badly he won't care becoming a pet.
It is not trivial to find a perfectly fitting prologue if the entire design did not follow a central focus. That is why the absence of a prologue (or the equivalent forms of it) is a very strong indication of mis-design.
I am not telling you anything new about prologue. You know all of that. You just didn't do it. The art of the prologue requires it to echo before or after the climax. It is about how to shape the plot such that the reader wants to have the prologue rerun. This can only be done if the prologue exhibits replayability, through depth, double meaning, contexts, or perspectives. Higher level construct requires the seamlessness of the prologue (because it is cliche otherwise if every story begins with a quote or a poem. It is just [bad].) Therefore, while the meaning of the story is delivered in the space where there is supposed to be a prologue, the audience get the meaning, but should fail to identify any replayable part until it is 're-run'. This is a strong design because the viewer has no defense that the original scene had a double meaning. When it comes it catches the viewer by surprise.
Some of these effects can be conditioned. For example, in an episodic design, you can start the ending music 15 seconds before the actual ending of each episode. I don't want to explain what it does. It is up to your interpretation.
Re: Gor-Gor:
You were wrong on the assumption that my method favors hack and slash adventure games. In this forum I posted several designs, almost none of them was of that genre:
The common feature that binds all of these is the use of mystery as the medium for interactivity, where player perception and interpretations are used for the feedback loop as the basis of interaction. TDM wasn't about hack and slash games.
On the method of different designs, of course there are different ways. You said that I say there is only one way. I didn't. In fact, I didn't even mention any procedure in this thread. Think about this:
1) Interaction
2) Anticipation
3) Flexibility
4) Mobility
This is not a list of procedure or methods. These are features of game stories with increasing complexity. The post wasn't about that every game with a story must exhbit all these features, but that this is the hierarchy that distinguishes game stories of different advancement.
You can design a really well-written linear story. Nothing wrong with that. It is a primitive design. But there is nothing wrong with wanting to eat raw egg. The hierarchy defines the features that make a game story more advanced than others. It has nothing to do with preference. You don't like game stories with mobility? I don't care. But those designs with mobility are more advanced.
Although you misunderstood what I actually said in this thread, you are correct that I don't think that gameplay should evolve from a story. To me, it is like saying, "I prefer counting the squares over taking the integral." That design choice is an inferior option. It is an option you choose when you have no better alternatives. In order to understand this, you need to know what 'gameplay' and 'integration' are:
Gameplay is the set of elements of interactions. Be it action, be it interactive dialogues. Doesn't matter. Anything that makes the player click or to hit a key is gameplay.
Integration is the intertwinedness between gameplay and story. You can measure this by measuring how much the story is affecting the player's decision on click the buttons, and how much the clicking of the button affects the story. Does the player slaughter monsters to make money? Does it make any difference in the story what monster is slaughterd? If there is a difference, is the different essential to the meaning of the story? Or is it just some curiosity of economic/ecological balance? Integration measure relevance between each gameplay element and plot element.
When you assumed that my approach favors hack-and-slash game, you were probably thinking gameplay in its narrower definition. The truth is the approach didn't originate from action-driven games. It originated from story-driven games, in particular, mystery story driven games, those interactive stories with absolutely no fighting or action. The pictorial interactive stories. You were accusing me from the uncommon end, because the normal accusation is that such approach lacks 'gameplay'.
Going back to the topic, I don't think that gameplay should evolve from a story. Think about this intuitively: Is it better to think about the story first, and then design the gameplay, or to keep the gameplay in mind while designing the story?
Which one of these seem most likely to make the best game?
R1E1.Wedding
R1E2.Scientist
R1E4.Prison
R1E8.Corn
Why? Is it because the intro seems to provide gameplay opportunities?
[Edited by - Estok on October 15, 2005 2:43:46 AM]
I don't know why you are trying to counter that you didn't read what I said. In your post you said flexibility is important. That was exactly what I already said. You said that any movie can be turned into a game but introducing gameplay. That that is what I said, and that Anticipation separates those designs and those that are coherent.
My inference is that you are not fluent in semantic construction. Think about this:
1) Suppose Merru read something about eggs or mythology, and then he is suddenly in the world of dragons, this makes the plot appear very childish. This is probably the reason it wasn't included (and shouldn't be included as is). Why is it childish?
2) Think about the scholar playboy identity. That is also pretty bad considering that the original scenes had nothing suggesting that he is a playboy. So if you had put it as a prologue, it would make the meaning seemingly imposed.
3) The lack of intimacy is a better central theme, but it still doesn't fit the situation. If he wants intimacy so badly he won't care becoming a pet.
Quote:But I don't know exactly what should go there and I didn't want to include any confusing undecided bits in the outline to make it easier to edit.
It is not trivial to find a perfectly fitting prologue if the entire design did not follow a central focus. That is why the absence of a prologue (or the equivalent forms of it) is a very strong indication of mis-design.
I am not telling you anything new about prologue. You know all of that. You just didn't do it. The art of the prologue requires it to echo before or after the climax. It is about how to shape the plot such that the reader wants to have the prologue rerun. This can only be done if the prologue exhibits replayability, through depth, double meaning, contexts, or perspectives. Higher level construct requires the seamlessness of the prologue (because it is cliche otherwise if every story begins with a quote or a poem. It is just [bad].) Therefore, while the meaning of the story is delivered in the space where there is supposed to be a prologue, the audience get the meaning, but should fail to identify any replayable part until it is 're-run'. This is a strong design because the viewer has no defense that the original scene had a double meaning. When it comes it catches the viewer by surprise.
Some of these effects can be conditioned. For example, in an episodic design, you can start the ending music 15 seconds before the actual ending of each episode. I don't want to explain what it does. It is up to your interpretation.
Re: Gor-Gor:
You were wrong on the assumption that my method favors hack and slash adventure games. In this forum I posted several designs, almost none of them was of that genre:
Quote:Dreambell: A servant impersonating her master in the wake of a seizable imperial power/A loyal and gullible servant inevitably involved in the deceptive power struggle involving a betrayal. Cryo: A person revived int the future to discover the reincarnation of a tragic past. Cardinal Prime: A couple of professional thieves struggling through mistrust and chances through an accidental death of one of them. Thirteen Tails: A group of rebels dancing on the line between peace and terrorism. X-zero: A group of rescue crews discovering the reason behind the abandonment of a spaceship of evacuating comrades. Little Red Riding Hood: A presentation of optimism through the cold attitude of the village and the ridiculous encounter of the curse of the werewolves.
The common feature that binds all of these is the use of mystery as the medium for interactivity, where player perception and interpretations are used for the feedback loop as the basis of interaction. TDM wasn't about hack and slash games.
On the method of different designs, of course there are different ways. You said that I say there is only one way. I didn't. In fact, I didn't even mention any procedure in this thread. Think about this:
1) Interaction
2) Anticipation
3) Flexibility
4) Mobility
This is not a list of procedure or methods. These are features of game stories with increasing complexity. The post wasn't about that every game with a story must exhbit all these features, but that this is the hierarchy that distinguishes game stories of different advancement.
You can design a really well-written linear story. Nothing wrong with that. It is a primitive design. But there is nothing wrong with wanting to eat raw egg. The hierarchy defines the features that make a game story more advanced than others. It has nothing to do with preference. You don't like game stories with mobility? I don't care. But those designs with mobility are more advanced.
Although you misunderstood what I actually said in this thread, you are correct that I don't think that gameplay should evolve from a story. To me, it is like saying, "I prefer counting the squares over taking the integral." That design choice is an inferior option. It is an option you choose when you have no better alternatives. In order to understand this, you need to know what 'gameplay' and 'integration' are:
Gameplay is the set of elements of interactions. Be it action, be it interactive dialogues. Doesn't matter. Anything that makes the player click or to hit a key is gameplay.
Integration is the intertwinedness between gameplay and story. You can measure this by measuring how much the story is affecting the player's decision on click the buttons, and how much the clicking of the button affects the story. Does the player slaughter monsters to make money? Does it make any difference in the story what monster is slaughterd? If there is a difference, is the different essential to the meaning of the story? Or is it just some curiosity of economic/ecological balance? Integration measure relevance between each gameplay element and plot element.
When you assumed that my approach favors hack-and-slash game, you were probably thinking gameplay in its narrower definition. The truth is the approach didn't originate from action-driven games. It originated from story-driven games, in particular, mystery story driven games, those interactive stories with absolutely no fighting or action. The pictorial interactive stories. You were accusing me from the uncommon end, because the normal accusation is that such approach lacks 'gameplay'.
Going back to the topic, I don't think that gameplay should evolve from a story. Think about this intuitively: Is it better to think about the story first, and then design the gameplay, or to keep the gameplay in mind while designing the story?
Which one of these seem most likely to make the best game?
R1E1.Wedding
R1E2.Scientist
R1E4.Prison
R1E8.Corn
Why? Is it because the intro seems to provide gameplay opportunities?
[Edited by - Estok on October 15, 2005 2:43:46 AM]
I don't know, I don't remember any of them.
And just because you don't like the idea of it all makes it inferior or superior. Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's right, or fact. It's just your opinion. That's why I find it so funny that you weigh your opinion over everyone's heads like it's irefutable law.
As I said repeatedly, -For certain types of games-, hell yes, I'd prefer story written first with game play deriving from it.
And just because you don't like the idea of it all makes it inferior or superior. Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's right, or fact. It's just your opinion. That's why I find it so funny that you weigh your opinion over everyone's heads like it's irefutable law.
As I said repeatedly, -For certain types of games-, hell yes, I'd prefer story written first with game play deriving from it.
You are not listening. The point is not about any certain type of game. It is a general scale of complexity and advancement. It is not a matter of opinion that Calculus is more advanced than simply algebra. It is not about whether you like the simplicity of algebra or not. It is about complexity, compatibility.
Which movie is more compatible to the game medium?
Finding Neverland or Peter Pan?
I am talking about extremely obvious flaws. You made a mistake when you tried to counter argue. I am not talking about what you assumed I was talking about.
The original argument is more advanced than you think.
The difference between Plotting for a story and for a game story
In general, when you plot for a normal story, you think in terms of conflicts, themes, characters and dynamics. These considerations are not sufficient for a game story. Just take Conflict for example:
Conflict: Just merely having a conflict is not enough. Depending on how advanced the design is, the conflict exhibited in a game story plot also need these features: Interactive, coherent with gameplay, integrated with gameplay, and exhibits anticipation.
Interactive Conflict
A conflict that is not interactive in nature is linear. In some stories, a conflict is portrayed. The characters involved in the conflict move toward a predicted direction. A good plot for a story does not require the conflict to have branches, opportunities for alternatives, nor the capacity to contain the flexibilities. This is not a topic on preference. Regardless whether a linear game plot is favorable, it is of lower level of complexity. It is like video taping the pages of a book to tell a story. It doesn't matter whether you like that style personally, it hasn't used the potential of the medium.
Conflict with Gameplay Coherency
Conflicts that are not coherent with gameplay are not contained by the gameplay, or are inevitably presented through disjoint modes of gameplay. This usually translates to uninteractive cutscenes, where the hero performs actions that are not part of the gameplay. For example, if most of the game involves killing monsters, but the final boss requires the player to toss a gem or to solve a riddle instead, that is inconsistency. Sometimes this is desirable, especially when the normal gamaplay of combat is painfully boring. But that is a design flaw in the gameplay.
Integrated Conflict
When the conflict has nothing to do with the actualy content of the gameplay, the player starts skipping the cutscenes and dialogues. For these designs, the game and the story are like two very different things. Example: There is a love triangle of some sort between the three main characters, with no relevance to the gameplay. The love triangle is obviously important from the perspective of the story, but is disjoint from the gameplay. It doesn't matter whether you like the triangle or not, it is a primitive implementation in terms of the complexity. In terms of integration, if the story features a love triangle, it better have some impact on the story and the gameplay. This is about design complexity. It is extremely easy add relationships and personality all you want. That is trivial. It is not as trivial when the additions play essential roles in gameplay.
Conflicts with Anticipative Gameplay
Anticipation is closely related to coherence and integration. An conflict with anticipative gameplay is a conflict where the player can sense the intensity and development of the story through the gameplay, and vice versa. This is a design where each cutscene prompts the player on upcoming gameplay, and the changes of gameplay prompts upcoming changes of the story. To understand this, compare this with the situations where cutscenes only prompt developments of future cutscenes, where the player either play the game to move the story along or skip the story till the next block of gameplay. Both of these situations occur because the story and the game are not cross-anticipatory. The player either have much more anticipation for the story, or much more anticipation for the gameplay. Cross-anticipation synchronizes the two disjoint threads of expectation and development. This is a feature that higher level game stories exhibit.
Designing a game story plot is not just about writing.
[Edited by - Estok on October 16, 2005 7:52:50 AM]
Which movie is more compatible to the game medium?
Finding Neverland or Peter Pan?
I am talking about extremely obvious flaws. You made a mistake when you tried to counter argue. I am not talking about what you assumed I was talking about.
The original argument is more advanced than you think.
The difference between Plotting for a story and for a game story
In general, when you plot for a normal story, you think in terms of conflicts, themes, characters and dynamics. These considerations are not sufficient for a game story. Just take Conflict for example:
Conflict: Just merely having a conflict is not enough. Depending on how advanced the design is, the conflict exhibited in a game story plot also need these features: Interactive, coherent with gameplay, integrated with gameplay, and exhibits anticipation.
Interactive Conflict
A conflict that is not interactive in nature is linear. In some stories, a conflict is portrayed. The characters involved in the conflict move toward a predicted direction. A good plot for a story does not require the conflict to have branches, opportunities for alternatives, nor the capacity to contain the flexibilities. This is not a topic on preference. Regardless whether a linear game plot is favorable, it is of lower level of complexity. It is like video taping the pages of a book to tell a story. It doesn't matter whether you like that style personally, it hasn't used the potential of the medium.
Conflict with Gameplay Coherency
Conflicts that are not coherent with gameplay are not contained by the gameplay, or are inevitably presented through disjoint modes of gameplay. This usually translates to uninteractive cutscenes, where the hero performs actions that are not part of the gameplay. For example, if most of the game involves killing monsters, but the final boss requires the player to toss a gem or to solve a riddle instead, that is inconsistency. Sometimes this is desirable, especially when the normal gamaplay of combat is painfully boring. But that is a design flaw in the gameplay.
Integrated Conflict
When the conflict has nothing to do with the actualy content of the gameplay, the player starts skipping the cutscenes and dialogues. For these designs, the game and the story are like two very different things. Example: There is a love triangle of some sort between the three main characters, with no relevance to the gameplay. The love triangle is obviously important from the perspective of the story, but is disjoint from the gameplay. It doesn't matter whether you like the triangle or not, it is a primitive implementation in terms of the complexity. In terms of integration, if the story features a love triangle, it better have some impact on the story and the gameplay. This is about design complexity. It is extremely easy add relationships and personality all you want. That is trivial. It is not as trivial when the additions play essential roles in gameplay.
Conflicts with Anticipative Gameplay
Anticipation is closely related to coherence and integration. An conflict with anticipative gameplay is a conflict where the player can sense the intensity and development of the story through the gameplay, and vice versa. This is a design where each cutscene prompts the player on upcoming gameplay, and the changes of gameplay prompts upcoming changes of the story. To understand this, compare this with the situations where cutscenes only prompt developments of future cutscenes, where the player either play the game to move the story along or skip the story till the next block of gameplay. Both of these situations occur because the story and the game are not cross-anticipatory. The player either have much more anticipation for the story, or much more anticipation for the gameplay. Cross-anticipation synchronizes the two disjoint threads of expectation and development. This is a feature that higher level game stories exhibit.
Designing a game story plot is not just about writing.
[Edited by - Estok on October 16, 2005 7:52:50 AM]
Author
Quote:Original post by Estok
Re: s/s
I don't know why you are trying to counter that you didn't read what I said. In your post you said flexibility is important. That was exactly what I already said. You said that any movie can be turned into a game but introducing gameplay. That that is what I said, and that Anticipation separates those designs and those that are coherent.
My point was that flexibility is only important for interactive stories, and is less important that presenting a thematic argument. My second point was that linear stories are not obsolete or inferior to interactive stories, they are merely an alternative medium. My third point was that writing/designing a game plot is essentially the same as writing/designing a story plot. Perhaps you are just ignoring my points whenever you happen to disagree with them.
Quote:My inference is that you are not fluent in semantic construction. Think about this:
1) Suppose Merru read something about eggs or mythology, and then he is suddenly in the world of dragons, this makes the plot appear very childish. This is probably the reason it wasn't included (and shouldn't be included as is). Why is it childish?
I don't think it will make the plot appear childish. Eggs are not necessarily related to dragons. I wanted Merru to be thinking about the symbolism of eggs, which would not be specifically dragon eggs. Then there will be no mention of eggs made in relation to the dragons for several chapters because it is not relevant, Merru does not even know they are an egg laying species. The point of the prologue is to introduce the idea that Merru's life is barren even though it's very comfortable, and I believe having Merru think about eggs as a symbol of creative fertility is a clear, powerful, and concise way to communicate that.
Quote:2) Think about the scholar playboy identity. That is also pretty bad considering that the original scenes had nothing suggesting that he is a playboy. So if you had put it as a prologue, it would make the meaning seemingly imposed.
His scholar playboy identity will be expressed in the first few chapters through his internal monologue of indignant complaints about being treated like an animal and sneaky attempts to remedy this.
Quote:3) The lack of intimacy is a better central theme, but it still doesn't fit the situation. If he wants intimacy so badly he won't care becoming a pet.
He doesn't know he wants or needs intimacy, the plot is about him discovering what he he lacks to be truly happy. Also, becoming a pet does not create intimacy because he can't speak the dragon's language at first, so he can't form an intimate relationship with his owner because he can't communicate.
Quote:The art of the prologue requires it to echo before or after the climax. It is about how to shape the plot such that the reader wants to have the prologue rerun. This can only be done if the prologue exhibits replayability, through depth, double meaning, contexts, or perspectives. Higher level construct requires the seamlessness of the prologue (because it is cliche otherwise if every story begins with a quote or a poem. It is just [bad].) Therefore, while the meaning of the story is delivered in the space where there is supposed to be a prologue, the audience get the meaning, but should fail to identify any replayable part until it is 're-run'.
This is irrelevant to me. I already explained that my non-interactive stories are intended to be read/played only once, and so should communicate all information to the audience on the first run through.
Now, to get back to the actual purpose of this thread, talking about methods of plotting. Here is a very useful plot framework a poster on another writing board gave me yesterday, along with examples of each step from Frodo's plot thread of _The Lord of the Rings_. I found it very helpful to go through and fill in the blanks for Merru's plot thread in my novel. [smile]
1) Stasis: This is how things stand at the beginning of the novel. If nothing happens, the character will keep on going like this forever.
Merru is a scholar/playboy who is the master of his domain but lacks intimacy in his life. (lack of intimacy = barenness, Merru is thinking about the symbolism of eggs.)
2) Trigger: Unfortunately, sh#t happens. An event beyond the control of the character turns the day from average to exceptional.
Merru is unexpectedly dropped into an alien body in an alien world.
3) Quest: The quest is generated by the trigger. An unpleasant trigger often results in a quest to return to the original stasis. A pleasant trigger (eg. winning the lottery) may result in a desire to increase or maintain pleasure. The quest may (and probably will) change throughout the novel, but subsequent quests should incorporate the former, raising the stakes.
Merru will not tolerate being treated like an animal, he wants his comforts and pleasures darn it!
4) Surprise! Unexpected obstacles keep the character from achieving her/his goals. "Conflict made concrete." This may happen suddenly or as an accumulation of events.
Merru lacks knowledge about the dragons' manners and customs, which keeps causing a looming disaster which he must narrowly avoid or wiggle his way out of.
Obstacle 1 – Cage
Obstacle 2 – Bossy Dragons
Obstacle 3 – Don't Know How To Be Helpful
Obstacle 4 – No Sex
Obstacle 5 – Forbidden Sex
Obstacle 6 – Passing As A Dragon
Obstacle 7 – Lieann's Demand
Obstacle 8 – Incompatible Public And Private Lives
Obstacle 9 – Attranath And Ravennin Should Be Here Too
Obstacle 10 – Getting A Territory
Obstacle 11 – Defending Family
5) Critical Choice: In order to surmount the obstacle(s), the character must make a choice. "What am I going to do now? How am I going to deal with this obstacle?"
The obstacles occur when traditional or habitual paths are blocked; overcoming each obstacle requires thinking outside the box and finding an unorthodox path to the goals. The unorthodoxness of the new method in turn requires the character to adapt internally.
6) Climax: "The decision made manifest." The critical choice has consequences. The climax is the result of those consequences made visible.
The 4 discover a new way to create a family (in both the territory and egg senses of the word).
7) Reversal: "A change from one state of affairs to its opposite..." Something
or someone has to change in the novel.
Society's condemnation is converted to admiration, and barrenness is converted to fertile creativity.
8) Resolution: A new stasis.
Merru, Lieann, Ravennin, and Attranath now have a territory of their own which is safe from the prejudices of society. They love each other, love their children, love their jobs, and live happily ever after.
[Edited by - sunandshadow on October 17, 2005 11:14:12 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
