Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 6:30 AM
Sun Nov 29
8 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/09/09
So the source of our interest towards them can be found almost completely from elements of the output of the media. Many times, these elements are found almost exclusively within the narrative (which is a subset of the output, and can be thought of in this case simply as a string of events that spans the length of the media).
Ultimately, however, the disposition of a person towards a book or movie is determined not by the output itself, but by how we interpret that output.
The potential magnitude of our disposition towards a narrative is almost always directly proportional to the percentage of elements in the narrative that we feel we can understand and thus empathize with on some level. We can only understand something in terms of the what we already know, so elements of a narrative that we understand are elements that we've translated to our own experiences or to some other part of ourself.
In other words, our maximum enjoyment of a narrative in a book or movie is limited by how frequently we can translate elements in a narrative to elements in our own life (whether or not we consciously make that translation). Lets call these specific narrative elements "relatable."
When a narrative contains contradictions such as non-canonical character behavior, we are forced to strengthen our suspension of disbelief. If we cannot, then much of our connection to the narrative (the set of relatable elements) we be severed. So it is important that narratives be created with careful attention placed on being believable and consistent. But Unlike books, and movies, however, the narrative of a game at any time during gameplay is determined by the user's input an instant before. Then a user generally has the freedom to cause events that may not seem consistent to events that came before it. This is generally a huge issue in video game narratives. In response, game developers have to do the best they can to reduce the frequency and severity of any possible contradictory actions the user can create.
Some games take a more tedious (but arguably less risky) approach of preemptively removing the most noticeable potential contradictions by either restricting a player's actions in some way, or providing canonical explanations via text/video/audio. Using similar in-game cues, the narrative of a game can also be strengthened by providing more "evidence" that it is self-consistent, and complete, and thus more likely to be relatable as discussed above.
Other games try a more simple, but possibly more effective (and arguably very risky) approach of providing a minimal exposition upon which the narrative
will grow such that the elements in the exposition are generally relatable to most users. Trying to obtain minimality of the exposition is key as it would only allow for a comparatively small number of potential user actions that would cause a self-contradicting narrative. Thus a user's narrative throughout the game would likely have a good chance of including a relatively small number of elements that are not relatable do to canonical inconsistency.
Said another way, a game with a very simple yet relatable exposition, would have a better chance at having a relatable narrative, because the exposition is simple enough that user actions will rarely cause any conflict. Also, as user actions will provide most of the narrative elements, the user will generally find them them to be comparable. This approach has the potential to make the game narrative both very personal, and potentially much more engaging.
Ueda's and his team have done an incredible job at realizing the narrative potential of the latter approach.
10/10/09
10/10/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
To all those questions? I would normally avoid the addition of those objects, but there are people in the business who will call it just a pretty picture if your map doesn't have the north arrow. Same with the scale. Do these components have their place? Absolutely, but they're not always necessary for the viewers understanding.
Aesthetics vs. Functionality. There's no reason a functional map needs to have all that extra information. It's unimportant and may add nothing to the viewers perception. It may even confuse them.
I would argue the same goes for videogames that pack in crazy amounts of back story. It's unnecessary and normally adds nothing of value to the overall perception of the work.
There is such a thing as too much. Like all the extra information in the Bioshock recordings. I felt they were unnecessary. When an important recording came around, I didn't know its significance. I wouldn't listen because none of the other ones were important. It was just a waste of good voice-acting (and money).
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
I think Ueda it's just being lazy, not putting some background in the game.
10/09/09
I mean, look at the vast abundance of fantasy adventure games that are crammed to the rafters with wave after wave of cliched enemies, locations, NPCs, spells and weapons. If one thing is clear it's that any moron can fill their game with mindless distractions like this with very little effort or intellectual exertion.
The very fact that they are not there in Shadow of the Colossus strikes me as proof itself that the artistic decision has been thought out and a conscious decision made to go along the route chosen.
Now you might not like the results, but I think it's unfair to accuse Ueda of laziness when he has clearly poured a lot of effort into producing a highly polished, technically accomplished, and critically acclaimed title.
10/08/09
It works extraordinary well. You travel through all these surreal detailed worlds, yet there is little back-story, little explanation, and has a lot of mystery.
In movie-making its a common technique. Some things are more descriptive if its left unsaid or unshown from the audience. For example, an exchange of glances between Humphrey Bogart into Ingrid Bergman is more romantic then a T&A sex scene.
For the Japanese, such techniques are philosophically more common, its "ma". A gap, nothing, zero of space & time. The lack of something that adds something.
...its a zen concept that is used in Japanese architecture, Noh theater, literature, cinema and, now, games. Team ICO and Demon's Soul is a perfect example of this "ma" concept.
[japanese.about.com]
10/08/09
10/08/09
Its back to fundamentals of character/world design: do you want to become the character someone created a story for or do you want to create your own story for the game.
It depends on the quality of the game, for me. I'm more than happy to learn everything about Dead Space and Uncharted that they have to offer but leave me to my imagination with anything to do w/ Team ICO. They allow me to create the beauty/sadness of the world thru their hard work at a personal relationship with the unknown in those worlds.
10/08/09
As long as mystery/minimalism doesn't turn into bullshit (everybody glare at 2001: A Space Odyssey /glare) I'm all for a little subtlety.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
If it wasn't for the obnoxious "to be continued" achievement, I would have been satisfied.
10/08/09
10/08/09
The title seems to imply that games which in fact do 'explain every character and every sword' are somehow lesser a form of 'art' than games who purposely leave things ambiguous. The content of the article that follows mostly stays on this path.
I will agree that games like Ueda's offerings are indeed rare, and accomplish something that many games try for and ultimately fail: that is to explain or inform the player about a world without explicitly doing so. Portal is another great example of this game design style.
I have near equal appreciation for all the titles mentioned in this article. To me it takes as much work to intricately detail and craft a world in which every facet is explained as it does to selectively drip information out and leave a lot up to the player to fill in the gaps.
10/08/09
I think it really has more to do with the games being different genres. If Bioware started making games with a minimalist approach to information, players would soon become frustrated because they wouldn't know what to do or where to go or why certain characters were acting certain ways. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) Ico games are much more linear therefore it's not really necessary to explain everything.
10/08/09
10/08/09
Perhaps Stephen did not intentionally mean to draw that line, I just don't like that many people will agree with this article for the wrong reasons.