“What’s the story?” - David Braben Pens First Column for Develop

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
David Braben, Founder of Frontier, has recently set in motion a new column for Develop. Every month David will be contributing a monthly article on “technology, design, and the murky ground where they cross-over”. The first article which can be found on Develop’s website or the latest Develop magazine has been posted to the Frontier website.

"For those of you that don’t know me, I started in the industry in the early ‘80s, co-writing Elite with Ian Bell, and going on to found Frontier. Frontier is one of the larger British developers, with 250 people based on Cambridge’s Science Park. In these columns I’ll be covering a wide range of topics, all sparked off by current game releases and events in the industry and all pertinent to game development."

Read the full article...

Let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
 
Read the article. Well, yes story and game play should mesh together. Some of the greatest games of the recent past did this, like Deus Ex, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR and others. All of those games I mentioned were RPGs. That's important because the player is made to feel part of the story because their character on screen is changed by it by obtaining new abilities or suffereing consequences for their actions. So yes David has a point. But will a games industry which has largely focused on dumbed down story lines, weak plots and fancy explosions, change their ways?
 
I really enjoyed Modern Warfare 2. And I seem to be the only one who was glad it was just a five hour game (I'm glad Crank 2 was a short film too). With all the action and set pieces going on, I just wanted to get through it and complete the game quickly.

I have Mass Effect 2 now though. Wow. What a game. Would Modern Warfare have been a better game if it incorporated Mass Effect style story telling - I think yes, it would have been a better game, by far.
 
Storys are great. Providing you've got a good story to tell. As David said. Films suffer from bad stories alot, how many terrible films have there been? Wolverine, terminator salvation, and dragonball evolution, all spring to mind. As games become more realistic, as motion capture technology, and animators become more sophistiated with real time technology, and gain access to faster and faster hardware, it's not supprising the line between games and films will start to blurr.

Upon saying that, it's not the only way to write a game, even for the next few generations. MMO's largely offer very limited stories. The generated quests are repetitive, the story doesn't really evolve at a speed that anyone recognises. And they don't really take you anywhere. Take Eve Online for example, there's almost no story there at all. There's alot of fiction written around it, but it's much like Elite First Encounters newspaper system, something you read online, yet never really interact with in any meaningful way. It's not really a part of the game, and doesn't really affect any but the most envolved players.

The reward for MMO's is reward of leveling up, as well as the interaction between friends, and other users online.

Also remember that the whole story line buisness also doesn't apply to smaller games. Most people would think, I expect, that there's no such thing. Which isn't true, mobile devices such as the iPhone, Nokia, and Windows mobile based phones are all powerful enough to play the sort of games we where playing a decade ago. But the nature of these devices is different. You're not sat in front of a dedicated TV, console and PC. The best kind of games for these devices are not epic storyline driven games. But puzzle games, card games, social games. Games like worms are ideal on the platform and highly addictive simply because you don't get so involved, you pick up an iPod touch, load it up, have fun playing it, drop it into your pocket again and carry on doing whatever you where doing. So for causal, play in a lunch time, on the bus, or while waiting for someone in the pub, storylines are not always that appealing.

Games are not limited to consoles and computers anymore, they expand a wide range of products. The new Kindle DX supports apps now, I image there will be an emerging market there. Which is great for indie developers like me, because we're back to bedroom coding. All I need is a bright idea, a computer, and a programming language.

So really we have two generations of games on the market at the same time. Those for portable devices, and those for dedicated devices. Upon saying that, theres a medium I failed to mention. Web browser games are also extremely popular and often benefit from alternative revenues such as advertizing. These are great for the office worker lunchtime crowds, who just want to play something while choaking something down. I remember my Boss back in 2000 sitting there in front of the computer addicted to a simple marble game, a grid, different colours and he had to make combinations to win.

So it's important not to apply a hard and fast rule to all markets. My company makes a good profit catering to the iPhone, and we don't do it with complicated in depth stories.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Games are games and movies are movies there is some overlap. There is market for movie like games and deep emotional story like games. So they will sell to if done well. But some big titles with no story of meaning are big hits to. So story in game is optional. It's is more a matter wich audience you are reaching. And how large they are.

Story writing for movies. Large part of earth population are female. And they like relational and drama soapie like character bulding and love triangle crap etc. This is where oscars are trown at. So it's a big market for big screen movies.
But there is a other market more male more aktion focused.
Females in those movies they must be hot. Screen filling. But must not distract from action to much. And lot's of over the top action. Tough guys. In a bit believable setting. Humor mixed with aktion.
These movies with shallow back story lent them self for pure games perfectly.

It's the gaming. Not the cutscene that count. Male (hunter warior instinct) wants to get bussy. Aktion

So you have different audience. Because more females do game these day's. That audience has growen. Where you aim for. Who like deep emotional story's.

Example Stargate TV series.
Stargate SG1 and Atlantis are Action exploring humor scifi oriented TV series.
The new Stargate Universe is a character survival drama relation ship soap...... and drip of Scifi and humor.
It attracts a different audience and killed off a decent part of the previous audience.

So for me a movie like Titanic is drama crap.
Transformers 1+2 and Rambo4 is a must have on BR. The latest startrek movie to. District 9, Cloverfield. Prefere Armagedon over deep impact.
Altho the level of drama is in place and not over the top.

Unlike Stargate universe does. Or depressing drama overdose BSG remake.

So a title like heavy rain sounds new, new gameplay field to me but would I like it!

If a deep story make a game more emersive and fit tighly in it. Is revealed by gameplay instead cutscenes. It could add to it. But it's the gameplay that counts. Dislike MSG4 to long cutscene. Learn to late a way to skip that. The overall gameplay was my thing. Except the bosses.

like there are exceptions some females like aktion. My sister and my mother. And some guy like drama to. Don't now anny. The audience might be 50 / 50.
Could be that the more intellectial people add to that side. If so they don't like most current games and past. Or search for those story driven exception avaible. Or arent gamers at all. Because this audience is not adressed.

Because I have no interrest in those games i don't know them.

That my opinion as a cutscene skipper. I'am part of that other audience. :)
 
Hard call that one - I think the BSG series was one of the best Sci-Fi series to come out in the last decade, right up there with Babylon 5 easily.

I agree. BSG's focus was on a more realistic, humanity, rather than the idealistic model (star trek for instance lost it's humanity, and starting becoming "which scifi device saves us today) that's been common to entertainment since the 60's. The simple fact is, if you want realistic, then you have to include fear, depression, lonliness, isolation, etc. These are all part of real life. What BSG did well, was also intergrate a more positive message, whenever their backs where up against the wall, they pulled through. They overcame moment's of betrayal (boomer shooting adama) it took time, but Adama got over it and accepted the new Boomer. So it wasn't all black, and depressing. They also gave us some amazing scifi moments. Galatica falling out of the sky, only to jump away again, pegasis coming in at the last moment to pull their arses out of the fire. It was a good balance. The twist at the end was great as well, shedding off technology.
 
Last edited:
Hard call that one - I think the BSG series was one of the best Sci-Fi series to come out in the last decade, right up there with Babylon 5 easily.
If you like drama a lot. Because of that there is a heavy need of drama acting. So it a quality show with a experience and high level of acting.
Wich I don't care about if only take lot of airtime for drama.

My first Scifi series is Firefly. A nice mix and balance out show with Aktion exploring humor drama. It's the only show where all 15 eps are rewatchable.
Then comes Stargate Sg1.

1 FireFly good balance out.
2 Stargate SG1 like the Humor aktion combo.
3 Stargate atlantis bit less.
4 Stargate SGU it beat BSG remake
5 BSG remake.
6 Startrek voyager
7 Farscape
.
.

x Andromeda entertaining
y crusader entertaining to

The drama are bad point to me but those show have strong good points.

What I realy dislike even more then Black seven. Is Doc. Who.
 
I agree. BSG's focus was on a more realistic, humanity, rather than the idealistic model (star trek for instance lost it's humanity, and starting becoming "which scifi device saves us today) that's been common to entertainment since the 60's.
Realism and drama ar not the same. The realism stay if you cut edit most of the overdone drama and keep the main story line.
The anti heroism and emancipation stil stand. It's what you give airtime. Like digging deep into characters. To deep that it hurts! The characters still show being flawed and not perfect by desision they make.
The simple fact is, if you want realistic, then you have to include fear, depression, lonliness, isolation, etc. These are all part of real life.
No you don't need 66% of al airtime to overflood it to the viewer. Some of it to give the deep meaning is enough.
What BSG did well, was also intergrate a more positive message, whenever their backs where up against the wall, they pulled through. They overcame moment's of betrayal (boomer shooting adama) it took time, but Adama got over it and accepted the new Boomer.
That unrealistic. Hate build up for non human enemy is even extremer so it has no chance agains paranoid against your enemy. This is unrealistic to depend feet survival of last humanty on a enemy. there is such thing as contra spying NSA CIA stuff. So they use them. But not to critical stuff. What realistic is a cylon this is actualy real human behavior in war time. Like the rusians invade germany in WW2. So non human the barrier is even lower. The mutany isn't a possitive thing. Killing of halve the crew.
So it wasn't all black, and depressing. They also gave us some amazing scifi moments.
Between the drama was the good stuff. But it is drama and disaster and extreem dark. A good example of Happy scifi is startrek.
Galatica falling out of the sky, only to jump away again, pegasis coming in at the last moment to pull their arses out of the fire. It was a good balance.
The good scifi FX stuff wich get my attention.
The twist at the end was great as well, shedding off technology.
Well that was a great surprise because I have both classic series to.
What a remake full surprises.

I weight the good stuff scifi agianst the bad stuff drama. So i have the whole series on box. And FFW

I look to the lesser TV show to I'am not that picky. Till the crap is to much.
 
If you like drama a lot. Because of that there is a heavy need of drama acting. So it a quality show with a experience and high level of acting.
Wich I don't care about if only take lot of airtime for drama.

My first Scifi series is Firefly. A nice mix and balance out show with Aktion exploring humor drama. It's the only show where all 15 eps are rewatchable.
Then comes Stargate Sg1.

1 FireFly good balance out.
2 Stargate SG1 like the Humor aktion combo.
3 Stargate atlantis bit less.
4 Stargate SGU it beat BSG remake
5 BSG remake.
6 Startrek voyager
7 Farscape
.
.

x Andromeda entertaining
y crusader entertaining to

The drama are bad point to me but those show have strong good points.

What I realy dislike even more then Black seven. Is Doc. Who.

I massively rate Farscape - stunning series that one. I have enjoyed all the Stargate series as well - I'm struggling with Stargate Universe.

Back on subject - I'm at times a cutscene skipper - but only if it becomes pointless waffle. I have sat through every single bit of Mass Effect 2 and enjoyed it completely. I think a good story is essential for an entertaining game but not a substitute for playability. Again using ME2 as an example - I will not be playing that through again as the gameplay is a bit thin and for me it's just an entertaining interlude that helps the game move along a bit. It would not stand on it's own.

I've found Modern Warfare 2 to be at the other end of the scale - no story to speak of but from a raw gameplay perspective, I'm quite happy to jump in and out and just shoot some stuff. It's a shame because it could've been much more but I don't think that it's a terrible game for it. It reminds me of an action movie where you just switch off and enjoy the explosions and complete lack of a cohesive story line doesn't matter so much.
 
Steve,

But that is the problem with ME2 - lack of replayability. Yes i enjoyed my first playthrough from a sort of interactive movie point of view, mainly because one does not know whats coming next.

However once you've been through it once i see no replay value for ME2 because there is no role-playing to speak of. You are Shepard and can eithe rbe a nice guy and helping others unselfishly, or be a bad ass who punches everyone in the mouth. So its one or the other or maybe a lixture of the two but no real role-playing.

I've just recently bought Jagged Alliannce 2 from GOG and was playing it last night. Okay so the graphics are super dated but the complexity of character development, improvement, and other dynamic stats just wipes the floor with most RPGs today.

Same goes with my old favourite XCOm 1 & 2. in those games your squad actually improves incrementally as they fight through missions. And its speicifc skills they used in the last mission which improve depending on how much they used them. is their accuracy rating goes up the more times they hit an enemy. Their reactions increase every time they successfully land a shot or two during the opportunity fire round.

As far as I can tell Bethesda is the only RPG developer today that actually correctly implements a stat increase system. Like in Morrowind where you could only imrpove a skill by using it. That makes sense rather than simplistic RPG systems where you just level up and can choose where to put your talent/skill points.
 
Steve,

But that is the problem with ME2 - lack of replayability. Yes i enjoyed my first playthrough from a sort of interactive movie point of view, mainly because one does not know whats coming next.

However once you've been through it once i see no replay value for ME2 because there is no role-playing to speak of. You are Shepard and can eithe rbe a nice guy and helping others unselfishly, or be a bad ass who punches everyone in the mouth. So its one or the other or maybe a lixture of the two but no real role-playing.

Oh I entirely agree - but from a playthrough perspective and getting 50-60 hours or enjoyment out of it I think it's on the money. Needs more depth to the RPG elements undoubtedly but the structure and liniarity of the game prevents that. I think Bioware have a pretty stock game structure that they have been adhering to for the last bunch of games they have released and the only thing keeping the games selling is the storyline. It certainly does say something for the strength of good writers in a games production.

As far as I can tell Bethesda is the only RPG developer today that actually correctly implements a stat increase system. Like in Morrowind where you could only imrpove a skill by using it. That makes sense rather than simplistic RPG systems where you just level up and can choose where to put your talent/skill points.

As far as recent RPG games have gone, the only ones I've enjoyed have been ME and ME2. I played Lord of the Rings Online for a bit but it got tedious after not too long. Eve Online was another that held my interest from an RPG perspective for a few months but again it got tedious because it has no story, no discovery and no real sense of wonder once you get past the initial stuff.
 
"Oh I entirely agree - but from a playthrough perspective and getting 50-60 hours or enjoyment out of it I think it's on the money. Needs more depth to the RPG elements undoubtedly but the structure and liniarity of the game prevents that. I think Bioware have a pretty stock game structure that they have been adhering to for the last bunch of games they have released and the only thing keeping the games selling is the storyline. It certainly does say something for the strength of good writers in a games production."

Bioware trade off the open endedness for a strong storyline and i think you are right the two are somewhat contradictory to implement simultaneously.

Have you played Bioware's DAO (Dragon Age of Origins)? I think its better than ME2 from an RPG perspective as it plays a bit like a modern day Baldurs Gate, quite tactical combat.

My hang up with ME2 is i am so starved of a good sci-fi spacey RPG that i was dissapointed with the finale product because while its fun and entertaining i just feel its so static and linear, dragging the player along its inflexible rail.

Whats i loved about Frontier/FFE, even though they were not RPGs in the traiditonal sense is that Braben created a wholly open ended universe. Like ive said before that concept is just waiting for a killer RPG space sim with the same freedom.
 
I am not a native Englisch speaker so please pardon if my writing is imperfect.

I am a veteran in computer gaming who is retiring from it now for a year or so, but hopes to find the time to come back to it. If I should sum up my experience with storylines in games I'd say: Quality is far more important than quantity. Keep it to the minimum, but do it well, create a haunting atmosphere, present a stunning world that makes my heart beat faster when I think of the possibility to be part of it. But then: Let me define my ways in there, don’t interrupt the game flow with linear storytelling that consumes my time and restricts my fantasy and my freedom in the game - and quite often annoys me.

I think in the future I will mainly be interested in playing MMOGs. I played two of them in the past, Mankind and Jumpgate, and I think in those games it is even more important not to overdo the scripted content. All that should be there are the outlines of an interesting world where the players create the storyline by their actions in the game. From the two games I mentioned, I liked the latter much more gameplay-wise, since I played E1 until Elite and really like space simulations since then, but I must say Mankind (RTS in space and on planets) was much more satisfying concerning every other aspect of gaming than gameplay. It was a real sandbox-type of MMOG with a maximum of freedom for the players.

I found it very annoying in Jumpgate that I had to chose one of three factions and was then confronted with the situation of hostilities between the factions just because "that is the story." I like to decide on my own who is my ally and who is my enemy, and I like to base these decisions on experiences I make in the game with individual persons or organizations they belong to (military and / or political organizations like guilds, defensive pacts etc.).

The guilds in Mankind were very advanced, almost state-like organizations, with elected or monarchic governments, ministries, constitutions, diplomatic relations etc. It was fascinating. Compared to that most squads in Jumpgate were merely lose combat groups within a faction, following the scripted storyline of faction war and hunting the evil AI-NPCs. In Mankind, there even was a guild that played the role of a university; one of their projects was an Encyclopaedia Galactica where they kept track of the history of the galaxy that evolved around the relations and wars between the guilds and alliances and actions of famous single players – it was brilliant stuff. That is definitely the kind of storytelling I prefer in an MMOG.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom