STORIES IN GAMES: A COUNTERPOINT TO USUAL THINKING

author=kentona link=topic=61.msg859#msg859 date=1182356260
Zelda is NOT an RPG. There is no character/stat building. Link does not received EXP. Items in Zelda games are not equipable and don't increase Link's non-existant stats. A puzzle in of itself in Zelda does not increase EXP because there is no EXP.

Zelda 2 had EXP.

Items in Zelda games are not equipable and don't increase Link's non-existant stats.

That's not entirely true. They are certainly equipable, I mean, you have to manually change tunics and swords and items in order to use them. And while they might not change numbers, they change other kind of stats. I mean, the red tunic allows you to go in hot areas, thats a stat in a way.

I'd consider zelda more of an rpg if there were more characters to control. Since it's just link, I don't know if its an rpg, but it certainly has rpg elements.

I would like to pose my opinion on story in games. BEcause games are interactive, a chance to exercize cause effect and problem solving, the best stories are the ones that the player makes for themselves. By this I do not mean choosing amongst a predetermined sequence of options that the game presents, but using the interactivity to form a narrative that would NOT exist without the player's direct, immediate input.

For example, a game of Super Smash Bros. can be exhilerating, enfuriating, fearful, etc. You may realize that you are near death one second, and then triumphantly counter and dominate the next, only to topple off the screen in inattentive folly.

This is what I think is referred to as "low-level" story. I find that a designer creates a good game, not when they present the player with a well-crafted plotline to follow, but when they present the player with the choices and environments that allow the player to create unique and exciting experiences, so that they can weave their own story.

And people who play games usually begin to craft low-level stories that the designers never even envisaged after a while. (ie speedrunning a level of Mario, crashing cars in mid-air two player in a game of Rush or Burnout, seeing if you can use remote mines to blast a guy up through the hole in the middle of the Temple level in Goldeneye, etc)

So yeah, games don't have stories, games are stories, and the quality of the game as a whole directly relates to the quality of the "story" the player experiences. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with plotlines, or what Card was talking about, but that how I see things, anyway.

Sandboxing with a game is loads of fun and can turn up interesting, visceral results. Though I wouldn't really qualify it as a story. As a writer, anyway, I just see a lot of beauty in setting up a carefully invented scenario. I appreciate them a lot more than the momentary drama of a round of Smash Brothers. This isn't to knock the fun of a game that just gives you a world to play with. Games can certainly present a CONTEXT with which you can create your own situations and emotional reactions, but I still personally think that games with more direct pre-conceived narrative are especially gratifying (Provided the writer in question knows what they're doing.) Sandboxing pretty much puts YOU in the seat of writer, creator. That's awesome, but sometimes it's just as much fun to see what someone else has expertly crafted.

I really don't think narratives in games is a matter of 'either or.' Games with limitations on your choices and those that give you as much freedom as possible both have their appeal. You can have your Hotel Dusks right along side your Grand Theft Autos and still have a mountain of enjoyment either way you go. It's not really a matter of which is more true to the nature of gaming, since you can't really limit gaming as a medium. All that really matters is what you enjoy.