Misterpinky said:
Alias42 said:
If the game is immersive, you have no freedom. If the game offers you a lot of freedom, the story sucks. If the story is good, you become immersed, which fucks up the freedom.
I agreed with everything you said until the last one. Bioware proved (with ME2, which I just finished) that you can have an immersive, excellent story with lots of freedom in how everything plays out. Give it five years, and everybody might get closer to catching up with them.
I mean it more theoretically.
You see, to achieve greatness is storytelling, you have to tick off boxes in a certain order.
However, you would be surprised how formulaic this all is. See http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_195/5909-A-Videogame-in-Three-Acts for an excellent digression about this.
If you want to tell a story this way, you have to take away some of the players freedom, otherwise the pacing gets raped. Telling both a story and offering freedom can be done both, however, by exposing the structure of the game. This has often been done by RPG's (yes, like Bioware's). Explaining how your world works, however, does not make for immersion.
Immersion, for the record, means not feeling involved with the game. Immersion is feeling like you're completely in the world on your screen. The effect has often been compared to dipping in a warm bath.
I am not saying this problem is unsolvable. I merely think that at the moment, games are at a stage movies were about 100 years ago: trying to imitate another medium, instead of making the most of the possibilities. Film back then tried to create theater, and games now are trying to create movies.
This will be solved once the possibilities of games are clear and defined, just like it has with film. My hope is mostly with the "Valve-approach", explained http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_236/6999-Gordon-Freeman-Private-Eye here.
Hope this was not too long, this is kind of my thing
