From the IGN interview

Frank wrote: I'm still deeply amazed at how some people could assume building an engine and then patching a story to it could ever work. Need for Speed, essentially a racing simulation, is especially pathetic at throwing some watered down version of Fast and Furious storyline (an already very poor story to begin with) and expect it to be seen as a revolutionary change or even a slight diversity. They really don't understand the nature of their simulation games or how game dynamic in general works, or are just too lazy to improve their sim engine.

Well consider that the industry is based on Engines. Most companies can't afford to make a new engine for every game so they use popular Engines. Then they adapt the Engine for their needs.

I have no real problem with coming up with a strong Engine and then adapting it for a Story. It is one of those things that if done right can work. I understand the business aspect of it first and foremost. A good engine can sell games on its own. How many games have we played where the story doesn't matter? Heck, I've had to play "Lego Batman," for the past week for a review and that game story is total crap. I still had fun playing the game. A good engine like they have on the Lego games makes up for the lack of story. The story isn't the point it's the game play.

That's the thing about games. Story isn't necessary. Doom likely wouldn't have been much better with a real story. However, that doesn't mean that story based games don't have massive potential with a whale of a story. MYST did extremely well (as a series better than GTA) based on mediocre stories. Today's shooters don't need good stories but they help. Great multiplayer aspects can make a game a hit too.

So there are so many easy "outs," for a Publisher. It's easier to make a good multiplayer angle than the good story angle. There are Publishers willing to take a chance.

That's why I hope 3 Cards does well, because after a little RECENT success it's easier to get a publisher to back a dev.

Well sure I'm not loonie enough not to make the distinction between the two essential categories of games

What you're describing is essentially the same as a board game, especially for multiplayer. Good mechanics with a near-infinite replayability. I'd put all simulation games into that category as well, from racing to sports to paintball/war sims along with the rest. The only possible progress come from the mechanics and the graphics, and story will NEVER be an issue. I enjoy some good Battlefield, CS, NHL without a storyline, and I hope they never have any. I'm not interested in some hockey drama cut scenes before jumping on the ice!

Doom is a bit of a moot point because the mechanics were revolutionary, at least mainstream-wise. Doom today would have very little success. So unless someone comes up with 3-d glasses for pc/console games or another yet unthought of revolutionary engine, FPS will have to first and foremost rely on story and have an engine built, or at least modified, around it. It doesn't have to vary much from what we already have, but if we want true progress this step will have to be taken. The first people to introduce vehicles into their engines for the purpose of story AND gameplay did it, I don't see why others couldn't do similar feats to fit their stories. It's costly, sure, but it's also well worth it if you wish to stand out from the crowd, something extremely difficult in today's context. It's a large win-win situation if handled by people who understand the nature of what they produce and not just the trends of a very volatile market.

Frank wrote: Doom is a bit of a moot point because the mechanics were revolutionary, at least mainstream-wise. Doom today would have very little success. So unless someone comes up with 3-d glasses for pc/console games or another yet unthought of revolutionary engine, FPS will have to first and foremost rely on story and have an engine built, or at least modified, around it. It doesn't have to vary much from what we already have, but if we want true progress this step will have to be taken.

Very true Frank. While I can agree that games like Doom never really needed a story, there are very few games these days that revolutionise gaming as much as Doom did. In which case, unless you do have some kind of decent storyline in games, there is nothing that sets you above the 2 million other versions of the same formula.

Back in the early to mid 90's you could almost guarantee that with each new game, they brought something new into the industry... I guess you could say games like Doom, Myst, Warcraft, SimCity were the defining games of their Genre. they might not have been the first, but they shaped the gaming industry. they did not need stellar stories becuase they could survive on their gameplay and uniqueness alone.

these days almost every game is derived from those titles I mentioned above (and a few more that I haven't), and so it is a lot harder to stand one above the other. So what do developers use if they no longer have the ability to bring ground-breaking innovative gameplay into their titles? They go for story, graphics, and other previously under-developed methods to set them above the rest.

Also, you have to take into account that the game industry is becoming as robust as Hollywood, and so you have to cater for a wider market. Halo, for example, was ground breaking, not in it's engine, graphics or originality... it was however one of the first shooters to work its way into the casual consumer living room market, and not just the exclusive die hard PC shooter fan-base. This was thanks to two things: Story, and the fact that it was released exclusively to console (at least, for the first 3 years it was).

So at the end of the day, while story may not matter if you are breaking ground with everything else in your title (like Crysis, which was just as fun to go for a stroll in the environment than actually shoot things), you are going to have to rely on something like story to better appeal to people.

-Cub. =o)

Well I think there are still innovations out there in game play and mechanics. Look at the Wii. I also was asked at the GDC by a friend who is a pretty big producer what innovations were still left out there. I described a game that I'd love to make someday. He just looked at me and said "You're lucky I don't steal things, that sounds addictive." He called me later today and said I need to pursue my thoughts with some devs. I may just do that.

The problem in my opinion is that people think "Its all be done," and then a game like Ultima Underworld comes out. That was the game that lead to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Strategy games are all the same, then Dune 2 comes out. See my point?

We've still got a long way to go before there are no original game play/mechanic ideas left in this industry.

I'm still looking forward to a story driven dev. So I'm hoping that Big Finish delivers the goods and that people buy it. I mentioned the game to a few people at GDC who had no idea it was going down.

Oh there is definitely a world of improvement left as far as mechanics are concerned. I've been advocating a revolution in Global AI for years but I keep on getting shot down on the account of being too complicated or even unpredictable. There will always be people to push the envelope while the majority insist it can't be done.

My original point, ages and pages ago, was that in order to get a complete immersing experience, one that is mesmerizing and groundbreaking, there has to be a perfect synergy between story and mechanics, including but not limited to engine, audio and video.

The board game category, the platform games, the sim games, they are only as mesmerizing as the context within which they are played, much like Monopoly or Risk. We enjoy the multiplayer games mainly for the social aspect, and the sports/racing/etc simulations because they are generally played around with friends. None of those games would be as fondly remembered if it weren't for the time spent with friends, be it in the same house or through an online experience. The rest of the platform games are good clean fun, but they're essentially bubble gum. A sweet taste for a few minutes that quickly becomes disposable and forgettable, leaving you looking for another gum. The Lego games you mentioned earlier come to mind. They're all fun to kill some time, but they'll vanish from the mind as quickly as they were played.

Games we enjoyed playing alone that offered an unforgettable immersing experience always comported an above-average story element, something that gameplay mechanics cannot achieve alone. Of course innovation is welcome, but it's not enough for a complete experience of what games can truly offer in terms of both art and entertainment. Hence my long tirade on the true role of a film director.