Intros

[Marcus]

But, I have a concern about the community here all of the sudden. Marcus' response made it clearest, though - you guys have no appreciation for stylization or foreshadowing.

You have a concern that people enjoy playing videogames? Don't put words in my mouth; I have an appreciation for good prose. What I hate is when bullshit is tainting my videogames. I hate how this generation of videogames have suddenly gone into this "blending of cinema" crap. Games are meant to be played, first and foremost, and when developers (especially of RPGs) are like "well, story comes first" then I just see that as a cop out for bad development.

Have you played Half-Life or System Shock? Fallout? No One Lives Forever? Arcanum??? Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth? Ico and Shadow of the Colossus? Deus Ex even! Those games had some of the best stories told ever in videogame history, both from a literary point and a cinematic point but NEVER ONCE did they say "Okay, STOP PLAYING THE GAME we're going to make you watch it now!" Half-Life and System Shock never snatch the controller out of your hand. Fallout had tons of back history that was left up to you to discover.

Videogames are about interaction. A movie is like a rollercoaster ride; you only see what the director wants you to see. Books are the same way except your imagination takes over for the pictures. Videogames are about self discovery; a bond between you the player and the developer's world. Good videogames let you discover the story personally through this interaction. If you take control away from the player, then you'll leave them feeling alienated and they won't appreciate the person they're playing as.

This is what happened with Solid Snake in MGS2. Everyone was so used to playing as Snake that when the game shifted to Raiden, a new unintroduced character, it threw off a lot of fans. MGS2 actually had perfect story telling; even though the cinemas were long, Raiden was a complete mystery making him a believable character. Few fans seemed to understand that he was a blank slate in a postmodern project for collecting data on a living entity (I don't want to argue about this game now), but MGS2 was the closest any videogame is going to get into crossing that realm of cinema and literature.

Mass Effect will probably come a close second but I respect that Bioware respects the player enough to let them play the damn game.

So my basic rule of thumb is don't take the game out of videogame. You may be making an RPG with heavy story elements, but a book will always be infinitely better than whatever you have to tell because I can read a book at my pace. In a videogame, I have to put up with dungeons and FILLER to reach the story.

Opinions will vary, but I always view gameplay as being infinitely higher on the food chain than anything else.

Xenogears is actually my personal ideal (for what I call a "tough plot"). Mid-length forshadowing/cryptic passage, short-mid-length expository text, and an optional short glimpse into the future. Again, establish the tone, establish the setting, establish the context. Perfect intro.

I don't know about you, but Xenogears was pretty terrible. They had a good thing going all the way up to the second disc then it all came tumbling down with bad references to an old sci-fi movie and a bunch of garbage that didn't make sense or have anything to do with the previous 30 hours of gameplay. It's just like you said; time contstraints. It's almost like the developers said "okay... we can't make the rest of the game so we need to tie all the loose ends as quickly as possible!"

 

[Reives]

@Marcus:
First of all, I have nothing against you for enjoying game-play like the rest of us, and putting it as the most important aspect in your eyes.

However, note that here with personal projects, people tend to have different approaches to their creative inspirations. I will use my experience as an example here, as I directly come in contact with this matter.


I had not the slightest interest in game-play when I picked up RMXP. In fact, I got RMXP not because I wanted to make just a RPG, but to specifically turn Quintessence, my (badly and amateurishly) written fiction into a visual and audio story-telling experience. And now, 4 chapters later with minuscule game-play, it has still truly been a personally satisfying success in my books.

Could've it been improved if I have added decent game-play? Absolutely. But the fact remains that my project, like the majority of the projects on .org, is a small personal project. As I prioritize getting the appreciated story out in its entirety as fast as possible, I simply do not have the time to create an elaborate game-play at the moment.


Do I expect people with your preference to play such a "game"? Not at all. But I am still happy with the target audience of the path I have chosen to go, which proves to be viable.

Do I want to call such things a "game"? Not really. But a mere general consensus of the choice of referral should not affect the freedom of design, as long as it successfully achieves the creator's intentions and expectations.


Lastly, your example of comparison between reading a book and a story in RPG is flawed in the aspect of egocentrism, as is a few other parts of your post. To some, reading a book is superior because it's an artistic and creative exercise for the brain. To others, absorbing a story from a ("story-oriented") RPG, in this case, is superior because it allows the director to utilize sound and visuals as if it's watching an interactive show.

Personally, I enjoy both for their own creative strengths.


Lastly, I just want to make it clear that I have nothing against game-play focused games at all - in fact I greatly enjoy them as you do. All I am saying here is that an "interactive story", if you will, can be a success in its own ways - despite the fact that it does not reach to people outside of its target audience, e.g. you.

 

[kaze950]

@ Marcus

Its a matter of opinion. Personally, I like playing a game (Like Xenosaga) with a lot of cutscenes. I don't think "story comes before gameplay", but they should be treated equally. Especially in RPGs. That is what separates RPGs from a lot of genres - story. I don't mind games with long intros, but I hate it when you have no intro at all. Sure, you don't have to have a 10 minute long video, but to just start the game playing as some guy in some place is foolish.

I do, however, think intros shouldn't be a screen with text, at least not the entire thing. I like visuals.

 

[Anglachel]

Marcus when it comes to RPGs, and my own project I have a story first mentality. If someone wanted to put the gameplay first and foremost why are they using RMXP? I think it may be because my first true RPG was FFX, and I loved it. I've heard lots of people criticise it for being for being too linear and more like an interactive movie. Yet I loved it. The gameplay wasn't the best I have ever played (no turn based system ever will be), but the story made it all worth it. I was quite happy to place my control down and watch an FMV sequence. Judging by your post I'm guessing you didn't like FFX much?

No I haven't played any of those games you have listed, but I have different expectations from other genres. If I wanted sweet gameplay I would go play Devil May Cry and God Of War.

Now there are different rules for games made in RMXP. I don't really want to watch an hour-long non-playable intro. On the other hand I don't just want pure gameplay. I want to create a story, a world. I'm not aiming for pure bliss when it comes to the actual gameplay, but I don't expect it to be a huge chore either. If I wanted to do something else I would make a different game, in a different genre, with a different program. (Maybe I should write a novel?)

It all comes down to opinion and preference.

 

[Marcus]

Blurgh...

My point in this matter isn't what you like best, it was simply this comment:

But, I have a concern about the community here all of the sudden. Marcus' response made it clearest, though - you guys have no appreciation for stylization or foreshadowing.

As if the fact that I don't want to be BORED means I don't appreciate good storytelling. I don't know, maybe I'm just an old fashioned gamer lost in the console RPG times but some of these ideas that are brought up are simply amateurish. I can't say that I'm "WRITING KING #1" but the point in my question/answer post was to point out that I hate bad writing.

You don't need a long, drawn out intro to show off any "style" or "foreshadowing." You don't need to make the player feel alienated from your game because you want to discuss some piece of backstory that has nothing to do with the actual game. Call me a minimalist or what have you, but there is information that simply isn't needed.

And this opinion of mine probably also stems from my hatred of anime which I feel has contributed to the "taint" in videogames. I noticed in games during dialog, people like to add in a lot of robotic text-book style conversations as if every character in their world speeks like a rocket scientist. Dialog is fast; people hem and haw, stutter, slip on their words but there seems to be this fascination with having every frikkin character explain themselves as detailed as possible.... but this is getting into a completely different subject.

What you make is your own business. This topic called for anyones opinion so I gave it. Don't alienate your player. You could have the world's greatest story ever told but if your game is boring and terrible then I doubt anyone but the most dedicated fanbase will bother getting through it. If you don't care who plays it and you're doing this as a hobby like most of us are, then indulge yourself to your own degree. If you want to make an actual game then this is pretty sound advice.

I'm guessing you didn't like FFX much?

I loved FFX. In my opinion, it was the best FF besides Tactics. It had a lot of cinemas, yes, but you were always in control. Everything was through the eyes of Tidus and the game never shifted focus to some dark underground dungeon were two cloaked figures are speaking cryptically or whatever. Also, the game was fun. It was the most difficult of the Final Fantasy games, it had a great level up system, and the characters were actually believable. Tidus' voice actor wasn't the greatest and Wakka and Lulu were always on teh backburner, but it was a great game that's really underappreciated by the Final Fantasy fans because it didn't have LOL LONG HAIRED VILLAINS WITH HUGE FUCKING SWORDS WHO CARRIED THEIR MOTHER AROUND THEIR POCKETS!!1111

Fuck Final Fantasy 7 for that matter. That game was pretty much the source of every console RPG's bad habits. I actually found the game to be ridiculously funny and almost thought it was a joke my first playthrough. When I saw Cloud in that horrible purple jumpsuit taking a bath with those gay men and then cross dressing I pretty much decided that Square made the game as a dark, satirical joke against console RPG's.

In fact, my love (and hatred) of Final Fantasy 7 is completely opposite of what most people share. To me, it was Square's satirical attempt at pointing out everything wrong with Movies, Videogames, and Anime; it's all flash, no substance. It's a shame nobody ever looks at it that way and now it's the basis of every new game.

But that is another argument as well...

Eh, I'm done with this topic.

 

[Anglachel]

Marcus seems I misinterpreted you. Because I agreed with almost everything you said in that last post.

I loved FFX. In my opinion, it was the best FF besides Tactics. It had a lot of cinemas, yes, but you were always in control. Everything was through the eyes of Tidus and the game never shifted focus to some dark underground dungeon were two cloaked figures are speaking cryptically or whatever. Also, the game was fun. It was the most difficult of the Final Fantasy games, it had a great level up system, and the characters were actually believable. Tidus' voice actor wasn't the greatest and Wakka and Lulu were always on teh backburner, but it was a great game that's really underappreciated by the Final Fantasy fans because it didn't have LOL LONG HAIRED VILLAINS WITH HUGE FUCKING SWORDS WHO CARRIED THEIR MOTHER AROUND THEIR POCKETS!!1111

Amen

 

[Reives]

@Marcus:
Which is why I made the disclaimer and the ending notes to my post. I agree with you on your original point and the argument against what you've quoted, be it a curved one or not.

But what I was responding to was merely the content that was in the trailed-off section of your post. If you reread it, I think you'll know what I'mean.

If you want to make an actual game then this is pretty sound advice.

Me sorry, but it's just that the tone of your posts always seem to give off a diminutive resonance to the story oriented RPGs. :p And again, the whole point of my post was missed as noted from this quote:

You could have the world's greatest story ever told but if your game is boring and terrible then I doubt anyone but the most dedicated fanbase will bother getting through it.

Which is a highly vague phrase, since by that, you are highly biased in the aspect of separating the "story" from the "game" itself; implying the the game is composed of 100% game-play. Not to mention the assumption itself is proven to be not true, if implied that a show-like structure with minuscule puzzle/etc. game-play cannot penetrate the player base as effectively.

That being said, I do understand that there's not much of a point in continuing such verses with an oppositely biased view (no offense at all, as I am too), so we'll just agree to disagree. At that specific point, that is. I still highly agree with many of the other valid points you've brought up.

 

[Diedrupo]

Marcus when it comes to RPGs, and my own project I have a story first mentality. If someone wanted to put the gameplay first and foremost why are they using RMXP?

The question of whether or not you should slog the player with a crappy intro has nothing to do with whether or not the mentality is "story first" or "game first".

You shouldn't be "story first" or "game first" when it comes to making an RPG. an RPG is equal parts story and game, so you focus on both equally and at the same time.

If you're making an interactive story, like Euphony or Rieves, then of course it's completely different, but this thread is about RPGs. You can make an RPG that is focused mainly on cut-scenes or an RPG that has a lot of gameplay systems, but neither one has anything to do with a bad intro.

In fact, my love (and hatred) of Final Fantasy 7 is completely opposite of what most people share. To me, it was Square's satirical attempt at pointing out everything wrong with Movies, Videogames, and Anime; it's all flash, no substance. It's a shame nobody ever looks at it that way and now it's the basis of every new game.

Heh, unfortunately that game wasn't intended to be satirical by the creators. To this day I still consider Yoshinori Kitase (the director of FF7/8/10) to be the worst RPG game director known to man. Thankfully he is now a producer and no longer actually does anything with the Final Fantasy series, creative-wise.

 

[Anglachel]

So your saying Quintessence isn't an RPG?

You contradict yourself too. You say:

You shouldn't be "story first" or "game first" when it comes to making an RPG. an RPG is equal parts story and game, so you focus on both equally and at the same time.

But then:

You can make an RPG that is focused mainly on cut-scenes or an RPG that has a lot of gameplay systems, but neither one has anything to do with a bad intro.

Wouldn't making an RPG focused mainly on cut-scenes be putting story first. Alternatively wouldn't making an RPG with a lot of gameplay systems be putting gameplay first? Some people prefer story more, some people prefer gameplay more. Like I said, if I wanted more exciting gameplay I wouldn't be playing a turn-based RPG. If I wanted story I wouldn't play your average FPS.

but neither one has anything to do with a bad intro.

True, but I'm not the only one in this thread talking about story/gameplay, it is called a discussion. I have already made my point about the intro, and you didn't discuss intros in your last post either.

Plus I'm sure the huge amount of fans of FF7, 8 and 10 will disagree. I'm sure Square would be quite happy with the money they made.

PS: Sorry if I came across as flaming, I have a headache right now from too much homework :/

 

[Diedrupo]

So your saying Quintessence isn't an RPG?

You contradict yourself too. You say:


But then:



Wouldn't making an RPG focused mainly on cut-scenes be putting story first. Alternatively wouldn't making an RPG with a lot of gameplay systems be putting gameplay first? Some people prefer story more, some people prefer gameplay more. Like I said, if I wanted more exciting gameplay I wouldn't be playing a turn-based RPG. If I wanted story I wouldn't play your average FPS.



True, but I'm not the only one in this thread talking about story/gameplay, it is called a discussion. I have already made my point about the intro, and you didn't discuss intros in your last post either.

Plus I'm sure the huge amount of fans of FF7, 8 and 10 will disagree. I'm sure Square would be quite happy with the money they made.

PS: Sorry if I came across as flaming, I have a headache right now from too much homework :/

You were arguing with Marcus, who has only been talking about intros. People automatically assumed that Marcus was advocating so-called "gameplay-focused" RPGs (I think that's a misnomer anyway, even the story-heavy FF games still have a lot of gameplay focus) by saying that intros should be short or interactive and not monologues and other common intro flaws. I defended him and pointed out why, and I have only been talking about intros here.

I did not contradict myself. You can have an RPG that appears to be mainly story and have little gameplay content (ala Xenogears) or an RPG that appears to be mainly gameplay (Oblivion), but Oblivion still has a LOT of story into it, it just tells its story mainly through the gameplay, whereas Xenogears tells its story by making the player watch 10 minute cut-scenes. It's all about how you tell your story.

Story and gameplay should not be treated separately, they should contribute and feed off each other. That is what I meant and that is what Marcus meant.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Umm, I'm sorry that I seemingly offended you, Marcus!

However, the distinction you are making is something I meant to mention but apparently made clear - the difference between mindless exposition and effective, relevent exposition. I am in no way supporting long forays into a back story that doesn't matter, however, if there is a lot of backstory content that does, in fact, matter, the task becomes one of effectively delivering this to the player. Now, we could have our character converse at length with it, taking a typical route of having our lead character be completely oblivious to the world he lives in, leading him to ask retarded questions, right in the middle of the action - or, we can get our relevant information out of the way right away. Honestly, I'd rather writers didn't have to write retarded expository dialogues midway through the game, and often times there is literally no other way to deliver this information. We could could put it in a book somewhere on a book shelf, but if it's important, we are practically inviting the player to get lost.

Some things can't be shown effectively - they have to be told. This doesn't mean you should have 45 minute cut scenes or a 30 minute intro written entirely in Coptic, just for the sake of prose.

Again, talking about Xenogears (when mentioning it as ideal, I was referring to the intro - although I adored that game, I, of course, agree that the second disk was sad), the intro text is, in my opinion, perfectly placed. It establishes the relevant background for the world as it was. We were introduced to only what we needed to know to understand where we were beginning, because knowing where we were beginning was important. Spitting Fei out into that village suddenly would have been jarring and nonsensical.

Again, there is a difference between lengthy exposition that is interesting and relevant vs length exposition that's just thrown in because it's cool. Final Fantasy XII is a good example of a game that got lengthy exposition exactly right - the sequences voiced by Marquise whatshisface were perfect for painting the relevant landscape surrounding the story. We could have consigned this to a gameplay sequence or an awkward dialogue, but chances are that would be crappy story-telling.

You also talk about suddenly moving to other places in the world to watch villains and such. Once again, most RPGs are not in any way, shape, or form first person. Third person persectives can be portrayed in many ways, but again, a very important factor in how a story is percieved is the omniscience (or lack thereof) of the viewer/narrator. Some of the best stories out there are written from an omniscient third-person perspective. I, personally, don't see how an RPG breaks this possibility.

Again, good writing vs. bad writing. Good pacing vs. bad pacing. I don't believe lengthy exposition is bad (can't you tell by my writing?)

There are some games that I wish would just shut up and let me play (Star Ocean 3) and some games that I honestly feel interrupted by the interractive portions (Xenosaga Ep.1) - however, different games strike a different balance and do so effectively.

I loved Xenosaga, and I love Oblivion, and I love many games inbetween.

Many games are stylistically cryptic or expository, some are open ended and detached. Obviously, it comes down to whether you like this or not. Some people hate Xenosaga for what it is, and some people hate Oblivion for the opposite reasons. Saying that one or the other is best is impossible to do objectively - as is pointing to any game inbetween and saying, "This is the balance the world universally prefers." No, no such thing exists.

So, the reason I made that statement is because a few people were implying that such a universal ideal did exist. That story tellers should forsake critical exposition because exposition is, in all forms, boring. No, I refuse to accept this. If RPG gamers hated exposition, we wouldn't be playing RPGs.

I also want to point out, just to be careful, that Canadian Knights does not have a drawn out intro. There's a 3-minute dialogue between the characters you play the prologue, and then you play the prologue. We have played with longer intros, but decided that most of the information could be turned into a playable prologue. I do not believe this can always be done.

Whether a intro is good or bad has to do with how effectively it's done, not how long or interactive it is - of course, this is all a matter of opinion.

 

[G-man]

Whoa I wish I could post full pages like the others in here all I came to say is the player should be thrown into gameplay, with almost no intro, I mean come on you want a backstory on a great war 400 years ago that has nothing to do with the hero!? Read a book...


yes similar to what I said on the other intro thread, but obviously this one's hotter.XD

 

[Marcus]

Well, I misunderstood you as well Arc and I always end up going off the deep end because of it.

I could have basically summed up my opinion on intros by saying "I don't like bad writing" but that's prevelant in many RPG games both amateur and professional. Opinions will vary on how games are handled; me, I believe that they should revolve around the character and take place in the first person simply because I like immersion and discovery. But regardless, bad writing can ruin any good situation and I guess the biggest question is:

"What can I consider bad writing?"

My only answer to this is "Read a bit of dialog out loud. If it sounds ridiculous to you, the creator, then it most likely is."

 

[thelivingphoenix]

Introductions and just writing a story in general can be really tough... I bought a few books a while back in the "Write Great Fiction" series... plot, dialogue, characters, and emotion/viewpoint.  I'd recommend them to anyone trying to get started.  They're all good reads.

I like introductions that are sort of in the middle, but when you get right down to it, long or short doesn't really matter as much to me as quality.  A long intro with hokey dialogue will make me put the game down.  Hell, a short intro with hokey dialogue will make me put the game down.  I don't really have much of a preference for showing or telling, either... sometimes the story will call for one and not the other and that's the only way it'll work.  Learning which to use when and how much to use is a skill learned over time... not many get it right on the first try.  Practice doesn't make perfect, it just makes you better.. :-p  Don't beat yourself up trying to make the perfect intro or the perfect story, because it can't be done.  There's always going to be something wrong with it, no matter how many hours you spend tweaking and testing and running it by friends first.

Please do not necropost. Thanks. ~Raven

 

[Calibre]

My favourite intros are when someone resurrects something that is really old.

 

[Anonymous]

There's rarely any reason why intros shouldn't be playable, really. I hate using an FF7 example but it's one people will recognise, the time between saying you wanted to start a new game and actually being able to move around was about 30 seconds. You got to run around a bit, fought a battle and then got another short cutscene that explained what was going on and invited the player to ask questions and then you got control again. The intro was a small dungeon with brief cutscenes gradually clarifying the situation and your npc companions dotted around to talk to. It went downhill from there but the intro was well done.

Longer cutscenes have their place in some games, yes, but that place is never at the beginning especially if the story is very character-based. Showing things happening to characters before the players give a shit about them is a surefire way to lose a player's attention. You can have your mountains of exposition and world backstory later on when people are willing to sit through it because they care.