Re:Defining Environment Language for Video Games
by jdkuuuu on Friday June 30, 2017 @05:38AM
(#14669559)
“story“ only conflicts with game possibilities when you don't accept player created stories. Players will stumble through movie-like stories handed to them, but the stories they tell friends are more often about dynamic interactions within a framework (“i made my first house in minecraft over a period of weeks and then accidentally blew it up“).
Re:Defining Environment Language for Video Games
by __david__ on Friday June 30, 2017 @05:09PM
(#14673620)
Maybe I didn't express myself correctly, but I agree. I do think that player created narratives will be more personal and maybe more memorable but pre-made stories tend to be deeper and more intricate. And I don't think one is better than the other.
Re:Defining Environment Language for Video Games
by douche on Friday June 30, 2017 @08:15AM
(#14670214)
Sandboxy games definitely have more replayability. If I look at my steam stats, Medieval Total War 2 is in the lead, followed by Paradox grand strategy games, Mount & Blade, Skyrim, then things like Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Prison Architect, Gamedev Tycoon, and so on. I have to go pretty far to hit something with a defined story.
Absolutely. But the flipside of this is that Minecraft has no story. It's sort of up to you as a player to do what you want and make your own adventure. Naughty Dog, on the other hand, is famous for their games' stories. I suspect interactivity and story are at odds. I also agree that the more sandbox-y a game is, the harder it is to make it compelling for a long amount of time.
I personally don't think one end of the spectrum is better or worse than the other. There are games with extremely limited interactivity (walking simulators) that I've had a blast "playing". I've also sunk a ton of hours into Minecraft.