Yoshinori Yamagishi, producer of Square Enix's Star Ocean: The Last Hope, believes that games can become the most effective storytelling medium over film and theatre, if it can overcome the challenges of interactive entertainment.
Speaking with CVG, Yamagishi said: "As opposed to films, books and TV, as a medium it is more of a challenge to produce a game in order to tell a story. In TV, film and theatre, the creator has control over how he gives the story to the viewer - it's easier to control the emotions and feelings expected from the viewer.
"But in [a game developer's] case we always have to think about how players might react to each depiction of a character or storyline, and that's the part we can't predict. Nevertheless we have to make these predictions to a certain degree, and incorporate this into our work. So it's more of a challenge.
"But if we manage to get over this hurdle, then I regard videogames as a greater medium to provide people with deep emotional and exciting experiences."
Check out the full interview here, in which Yamagishi discusses the future of the RPG genre and the challenges faced by Japanese games development.
I'll wait for Heavy Rain to see that...Square's games don't do it for me.
As a fan of the Adventure genre though, I have to say games can do good storytelling, and since you are part of the game, games could be better than movies. But generally it doesn't work out that way.
I think that video game stories have a lot of room to mature (there is no gaming equivalent to The Shawshank Redemption for example). Yet interactivity and the relationship a player has with the protagonist and the world in which the game is set is a big advantage in the telling of a good story.
I agree with the guy as some games I have played left me with lasting emotions that have outlived some of the best films and books I've experienced. Shadow of the Collosus had very little narrative yet still tugs at the old heartstrings.
I think the problems hes talking about with story telling ARE infact present in all mediums of entertainment. The only difference i see between game story telling and movies/theatre is the quality of the written story and dialogue. I believe there are a few reasons for this. Summarised, i dont believe storytelling is a large priority for the developer. So they dont waste money hiring a high quality writer. A movie is usually written by one guy with a clever idea, video games are written by committee's who are trying to appeal to there demographic (usually 16-25 year olds).
The way some games are put together ruins any chance of a good story, they build the story around the game and not the game around the story, Killzone 2 is a perfect example of this. Its clear, to me, that KZ2s awful story was rushed and the locations simply to ad variety as they were not integral to the story in anyway. The characters were given no thought or depth, just simple cleched characters copied from generic action films. Infact, ive completed KZ2 twice, in the hopes of picking up some more of the story, unfortunately i cant even remember the characters names. There are plenty of examples were it was done correctly, Final fantasy 7, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Assasins creed, to name a few, have well written stories that progress nicely. In these cases, wether you like them or not depends on wether they appeal to you or not rather than any flaw or superficiality. But i do think all of them have room for improvement, as far as a new approach to user appeal is concerned.
In my opinion, game design has gotten to a point were graphics are not going to get much better. They will have to improve story telling in order appeal to a wider audience and continue growth, that or stick with gimmicks wich do more harm than good to the industry. Dont get me wrong, I think the Wii has an innovative design but the quality of games is absolutely appalling. There are only 6 games worth having and they are all sequels, wich is hardly a innovative approach to game design.
Imo game stories are already far better than modern movies genericy.
Game devs also haven't gotten the 'remake bug' yet either, with a couple of exceptions (and who would argue that REmake wasn't better than the original Resi on the Playstation anyway?).
I think games could surpass film. The thing that gives game the edge over film id that it doesn't have a ny time constraints. A film generally runs for 90-200 mins. A game runs from 10-40 hours. You have a lot more time to become emotionally invested in them and you instantly want them to succeed from the get go because you yourself are charged with thier endevours too.
I'd say games in the future are going to be mmore like interactive books. Then again thats what rpgs have always been.
I'm not really fussed about a good story in the context of things. Yes, you need an incentive for doing what you are doing in a game, but that is all.
Games should be fun first and everything else second. Why do you think so many people love retro games? It's because they aren't bogged down in some silly convoluted story and instead just provide good, old fashioned fun.
Why do you think the Wii sells so well? Does it have Bioshock, MGS4, Halo or Mass Effect? Nope. It just provides people with that simple fun that Atari brought to the masses so many years ago.
Yes, I am looking forward to Heavy Rain, which seems contradictory to what I have just written, but it seems to be doing things a little differently. It could be similar to reading a Steve Jackson/Ian Livingstone adventure, but in graphic form, which in itself adds its own layer of fun because I absolutely loved text adventures.
It is when action games try to have emotional scenes that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. FF7 managed to be emotional without HD spangly visuals. SOTC managed to be emotional without using dialogue - as did Zelda OOT and Ico.
Games developers have to portray their story in a different way than books and films, and those that understand that tactic seem to prosper.
If I was a developer, I would try and leave as much to the imagination of the player as possible. That way, the player is filling in the emotional blanks that are, more often than not, filled with CGI guff in games.
And again, that is why text adventures were so compelling. you needed no visuals or sound, just imagination to be whisked away.
I reckon at least 10 of the comments on this article will be criticising Square and/or their storytelling.
I can help here. None of the Square games I've played actually offer the player any choice in what he says or does, so how do they have any more of a challenge than a film writer?
I think he's right too, it just seems odd coming from a company that doesn't try and do anything with the interactivity games offer.
If Square actually tried to be inventive in the interactivity side of game production with regards to storyline and plot progression then I think what he says is perfectly viable. If anyone could produce a game with more scope for story and character depth it would be Square I think. Their stories alone are simply amazing more often than not.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
