HOW DO YOU DECIDE TO MAKE A STORY INTO A GAME?

Posts

Pages: 1
I'm having a bit of trouble. The game I'm working on has a really, really great story. I know that everyone says or thinks that about their stories, so it's almost worthless to say it. But when you (the RMN community) have a great story, how do you decide that it should be made into a game?

The answer seems obvious, I know. "You make it into a game simply because you want to." But is that enough?

I have been teetering back and forth on this subject. I feel that the story is good enough to stand alone, and while I want to make it into a game, it seems like it may take away from it or detract. How do you determine that your story shouldn't just be made into a comic/manga/webcomic/etc instead?

Does placing it into a game enhance it?

I am almost of the opinion that you shouldn't make a game unless you're bringing something fresh in terms of gameplay. Because of this, I have almost (almost) come to a fork in the road in the form of two questions:
- Is it important that this be made into a game?
- Or is it more important just that the story is shared?

I guess there's no problem in doing the story both ways.

Does anyone else feel this way? Why do you choose a game to be the medium of choice?

Thanks!
I think a game allows you to connect with the characters more than just writing a story would. Going through the actions yourself makes you feel more a part of the story. Yeah its one thing to read about how Cloud gave the black materia to sephiroth, but it's a whole other thing to be the one to do it.
Yes. When someone decides to transfer a story into a game it is because they want to enhance the feeling and connection to that story. RPGs specialize in stories because it gives the player a role to play. The role is usually the protagonist's eyes and makes the player feel like they are part of the game. You may also want to reap the most out of a story by adding it into a game, like battles and bosses and hidden cut scenes and things you won't be able to add into a book. As tpasmall said, it's one thing in a game, and another being read.

You can read the lyrics of a song, and think of the beat to it it in your head.

Yes moments later you'd rather hear it on youtube.

You put input into getting to that specific song on youtube. And you feel more endorsed in what's happening.

In a book, you read a story and yes, you can feel like you are one with the book, that's not to say that doesn't happen, but a game is heavily focused on the players input.

For example, in a book, you might have a dragon fight against an army. You read through it and you might love the way the author has explained the detail.

But if that same part of the story was in a game, a highly intense battle would take place, and the player must, MUST complete the battle with his or her own input to proceed the story.

Whereas in a book you can read on and on without much thinking, because the physical challenge isn't there.

So to put it simply. A person who has decided to put their story into a game is aiming to flesh out the story through a game term. Alas, an RPG. Challenges that block off the story ect.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
When you write "shared", you mean how, by which medium; making it into a game would be one way of sharing it (but of course there's other ways)or do I misunderstand you?
That's an interesting question.

I agree that it should only be made into a game if you also have something interesting to offer in terms of gameplay. It doesn't have to be totally fresh, but at least appealing.

Another point to consider is whether you'll be able to make the game at all. Maybe the game you want to make is just beyond your skills. Maybe your skills are not good enough to depict that story as well as you want. Or maybe you are skilled, but you might give up on doing the game eventually because... that's usually what happens. Writing it in a comic/text-story makes it more likely to be finished.

But games are indeed better, imo.
author=chana
When you write "shared", you mean how, by which medium; making it into a game would be one way of sharing it (but of course there's other ways)or do I misunderstand you?

When I write "shared", I just mean "to get the story out for people to read".

And I don't know that I necessarily agree that there is more immersion in a game than in a book. It is all dependent upon these things at the very least:
- the strength of the author and his/her style
- how good the visuals of the game are (I am not saying you have to have great graphics)
- the reader/player

I have read many books that I would never want to see in film. That may stem from a stigma that assumes Holywood will screw it up, though.

It's hard to say that anything that can be done in a book can be done in a game, and then some. I recognize that books are text, and I know that you can put text in games. So really, anything you can do in a book can be done in a game. I still feel that something may or can be lost in translation.

I'm not trying to talk my way into one option or the other right now. I'm just interested in how others feel on the subject.

author=Essenceblade
Whereas in a book you can read on and on without much thinking, because the physical challenge isn't there.

And I disagree with this statement. Just because you're reading, that doesn't mean your brain is not engaged. I've used the same argument that you're using now whenever someone challenges video games versus books, and only right now in this instance do I recognize that this is an invalid statement. It may be true some of the time, but certainly not all of the time. If there's a game that engages the brain more than reading something like The Fountainhead, I haven't played it. I don't think that when most people read, they go on auto-pilot like when watching tv. I may be wrong, though. When I read and come to something that I think is a really interesting point, I tend to reread the passage a few times to try and get the full scope of what the author is saying or implying. I've never really done that with a video game.

I feel more of a connection to Howard Roark than Terra, Fei Fong Wong, or any character from Dragon Quest.
I almost always think of my stories from a "game" point of view, so I rarely think that they might fit better somewhere else. What I like the most about telling a story through a video game is that you can more easily give extra details and extra points of view.

For example if in a game you have a side quest where you can find a random old man and help him find his missing grand daughter but that it doesn't have anything to do with the main story and isn't even in the path that your character should be taking, then I find that a game will present that side story much better than in any other medium. In a book it wouldn't make much sense to suddenly make characters decide to go on a random path and take part in a small side story.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
The difference between a game and a book or movie is interactivity. If the interactivity isn't there, then it's not really a game.

Sit down and figure out if your story would truly benefit from being interactive. Will the player be able to affect the outcome? Will the player's actions mean something to the story, or will every battle just feel like turning a page, only more arduous?

This is also one of the main reasons cutscenes are criticized in games: if you no longer have any control, it's not interactive.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
I totally agree that there is not more interactivity in games than books, depends which book of course, but I would say the personal, imaginative investment is much greater in any decent book than in a videogame (I know this is probably not very popular to say here, but still), so the real question this amounts to, imo, is : how good a writer are you (and writing goes of course far beyond telling a story)? In the case where you don't consider yourself a good enough writer, try making it into a game (though that's not so simple either... ), otherwise, yes, write it.
I can't recall ever taken a story that wasn't originally intended to be in a game and then made it into a game. Stories I made into a game has from the start been intended to be made into a game.

I don't think video games are necessarily more immersive. While a game lets you take part of the adventure, it can also serve as a reminder that is is, you know, a game. In my case, I often predict future plot twists and analyze dialogs based on the fact that it's a game. For example, sometimes I see a character who has "boss fight" written all over him/her and can therefore exclude events which doesn't involve said boss fight happening.
Ronove
More like Misao Stealing Prince
2867
I don't think people should make a story and then fit it into the game. If you want to make a game--be it visual novel, RPG, whatever--you need to make the story alongside the gameplay. When that happens, the story evolves with what you want to do in a game and thus feels more interconnected.

I know I have a lot of troubles taking game-ideas I've had and adapt them to a different medium (novel/comic/illustrated fairytale) because I always realize "I made this to be for an RPG, so there are spots where I wanted people to explore/do whatever". Great kudos to anyone who can take a game idea and adapt it to a new medium, but I always have a hard time. And thus I have a hard time trying to take a novel idea and make it into a game without completely redoing large portions of it to make it fit within a "game" and not just have 2 hour cutscenes, 5 minutes of exploration before a 2 hour cutscene.
author=chana
I totally agree that there is not more interactivity in games than books, depends which book of course.

I don't actually agree with this.

Games, by far, have a lot more interactivity than books. Sure, there are interactive books, but books in general are just texts per se. In games, you're dealing with other factors like moving animations and cutscenes to better portray emotions that you can't normally do in a normal book, and of course gameplay. You shouldn't really make a story into a game unless you have a basis for interesting gameplay elements as well.

If you're just converting a story into a game using RPG Maker, this pretty much is to say a person just gonna use the default battle system and just pour the story into the game itself. If someone does something like that, I'd rather he just write the story instead of converting the story into a game.

Games don't shine just because of the story. Games aren't complete without gameplay.

The main point, in general, is, if one wants to convert a story into other media, he or she must take some factors into account, like:

1) How can I better portray my story in other media?
2) Is it worth converting my story into other media if I have extra stuff I want to portray, for example, I have numerous cutscenes I want to portray but I don't have any ideas for gameplay etc, then you're just better off making a film or animation.

Converting a story into other media, of course, will depend on whether you are willing to learn the extra skills needed to create games, film or animations.

Of these media, though, I would say games would be the best form if you want the audience to explore stuff that otherwise can't be done so or wouldn't fit into a film or an animation.
author=Ronove
I don't think people should make a story and then fit it into the game. If you want to make a game--be it visual novel, RPG, whatever--you need to make the story alongside the gameplay. When that happens, the story evolves with what you want to do in a game and thus feels more interconnected.


I'd disagree with this only in respect to the "visual novel" part; A visual novel has no "gameplay" other than the decision points, and it doesn't even have to have those. As such, it is a "storytelling-centric" medium rather than a "gameplay-centric" one.

Regarding RPGs, there's no problem with thinking up a story first and then deciding to tell it as a game as long as the author is thinking about how to adapt the story into the new medium.
author=Ronove
I know I have a lot of troubles taking game-ideas I've had and adapt them to a different medium (novel/comic/illustrated fairytale) because I always realize "I made this to be for an RPG, so there are spots where I wanted people to explore/do whatever". Great kudos to anyone who can take a game idea and adapt it to a new medium, but I always have a hard time. And thus I have a hard time trying to take a novel idea and make it into a game without completely redoing large portions of it to make it fit within a "game" and not just have 2 hour cutscenes, 5 minutes of exploration before a 2 hour cutscene.

This is pretty much what I'm running into. I'm writing up the script with the intention of it being a game, so I'm including camera pans and character cues - all of that - in the write up. The only problem is, I feel it may be too much dialogue. I can't say for certain how it will feel.

I'll probably make a mock up using placeholder sprites and maps real quick so that I can gauge how wordy it is. I think dialogue is very, very important, but I also know that there are people out there that have no desire to sit through a book. When writing the script, it feels like there's a lot to it, but then again, playing through, the dialogue may flow more quickly than I imagine. I guess I'll just have to see.

I may put things on hold for a few days and start on that tomorrow (Ace!).
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
The only kind of book that is interactive is a Choose Your Own Adventure. "Interactive" implies that the player (or reader, in the case of a book) can give input to the media, and the media can change and respond in turn. While every book will be read and interpreted, the book itself will never change. Games can, and not many designers utilize that.

I'm not talking sandbox RPGs or dialogue trees either, although these can play a part. Everything the player can truly interact with (meaning the game can respond) will more deeply engage the player.
When I need music.


Basically, your question is why use games as the medium to express your story? Music is my reason. Words alone can create visuals to a pretty decent extent. But music, no. And I'm not making a video production. I can express a pretty great story through this medium.

And WonderPup, your dialogue won't be too much if it's good dialogue. The reason people don't like lengthy, wordy cutscenes is because they're 'usually' incredibly boring. If the audience is entertained by it, which is damn hard I imagine, just do it.

It's a tough call to make. One big advantage that games have is that they can hook an audience almost immediately. Gameplay and graphics are like instant gratification, but plot and characterization often require the investment of time before they become satisying (especially characterization; that's the hardest). A smart designer can use gameplay to keep audiences interested while they develop the plot and characters. Of course, very good writing can also accomplish this.

Pages: 1