I am in no way saying that the media that I referenced are all the same. In fact, I detest it when game developers, for example, try to copy what they see in movies. Granted, there is a lot to be learned from movies (it’s the most refined visual medium we have at this point), but it should not be copied. What I was suggesting, though, was that every medium goes through a pruning process. Movies, in fact, go through it twice (once during the planning stages, then once after everything is shot and it gets handed to the editor). Games, however, go through the former, and very, very rarely the latter. The two biggest reasons for this are 1) schedule, and 2) in the current climate of the industry, more volume is always better. Why, then, would you want to cut 3-4 hours of your game, even if it’s simply repetitive and adds no other value than to simply make your game longer? (Reference: Halo)
As for the definition of “story” vs “setting,” yeah… it’s my hacked definition of it. But, I usually use “narrative” instead of story, but I didn’t want to sit there and have to define what a narrative includes. And as for Tetris creating a multitude of “scenarios,” well, it creates a multitude of scenarios in the same way that a calculus formula or a game of checkers can. There is no intrinsic narrative, per se.
This is what I’ve been struggling to define, for myself even, that the driving motivational force of a game experience can be considered the scenario, but that scenario can be abstract as well as narrative. Using the golf course example that represents a scenario for a course of events, but the actual story isn’t told till the players inhabit the scenario.
A scenario can be abstract or referential, static or dynamic, in the case of a game the entire potential for scenario may be expressed entirely in the system, or even in some extreme (and invariably misguided) cases the story. There is no way to completely define it, and that is again exactly why it’s an artform. An entirely individual effort (or collection of efforts) of choosing priorities for the scenario. Each game is it’s own unique definition.
People like me to try say things in the most simple way possible =P :
The “scenario” or “setting” (both the same) describes what the game/playfield/world looks like , it also contains the rules and principles of the game.
The “story” is the narrative element. it follows the progress of the player/his avatar.it contains things like: the goal (as in , the reason for which we do what we do in the game) . or various events in the game.
that’s more or less my definition …far from perfect, but it’s late as well…killing colossi one after another…
SotC has a rich setting/scenario, a weak story though.after my definition (and at my current state ig).
Btw Abadd: Iwas fully aware that you clearly distinguish between those different media. I just never really could agree with your opinion that games should not copy from films ( You said that on various occasions in the past , never forgot it ;). especially now that they become so visually refined…i think that they can learn lots from it , even from copying .
Ofc you can’t just copy/paste ,but it’s part of the learning process…each medium matures over time.
as an artist , when i tried to copy other artists , the pictures i obtained where dreadful…but by trying to understand how they proceed and why , i learned things i would have taken much longer to understand otherwise , if at all…
result:progress
and p.s. , poor “enchanted arms” we are slipping into deepest off-topicness considering the original post =P
Meaning that back when I was a student, I had much more free time, so I didn’t mind having to spend a lot of time on any single game (ot games in general).
I’ve been playing Enchanted Arms for a couple days and it’s quite fun, it’s too bad, if the plot and the characters and dialogue were actually compelling it could have been something special. The principle character is literally a moron, I get the impression he’s inspired by the polularity of Naruto or something but since Atsuma isn’t a little kid his overacted denseness is truly atrocious at times. You can at least skim the chat when it gets sickening.
In a traditional random encounter RPG the battles must be compelling for me to stick with a game, and that’s where this game really does succeed. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the quality of Azel’s battles to me in that very expedient tactics are possible and rewarded, yet a safe and defensive play style is just as viable. Building up my party members very offensively single turn perfect wins have been a routine, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy at all, a single mistake or simply getting overmatched can mean the enemy will do the same thing to you on their turn. It’s more like a card battle in that respect.
Anyone who likes S-RPG’s will probably enjoy the system, it’s almost like playing Tetris with the different attack ranges. It’s quite straightforward and intuitive but early on I’ve routinely spent a couple minutes puzzling things out before I find the right solution for sweeping the enemy side of the board. And the golems keep your options open for any number of ways you want to play. Again it’s more like a card game in that how your whole party complement one another is critical if you want to kick ass.
The visuals have one foot in next-gen and one foot in last but I find it very appealing overall, metrosexual FF rejects notwithstanding. Virtually all the scenery textures are giddy with bump-mappiness and light bloomage, even stone looks like it’s been coated in oil or something but it’s cool. The golems are whimsical and varied, yet again like a good card game they don’t have any arbitrary commonality of design. Synthesizing Funny Clown I found myself thinking that it’s time to see a new Nights!
Knowing basically what to expect from it I haven’t been disappointed and so far I’m enjoying Enchanted Arms more than I really expected.
Just a quick note on the main character being a moron: it’s a theme that started long ago.
Older manga like Kinnikuman (Muscleman in the West) and Dragonball, or even newer ones like One Piece, all have main characters that are dumb as rocks, but have hearts of gold. While I enjoy these manga, it is a bit off-putting that the main character, the person the audience is supposed to relate to the most, is always dumb. Perhaps it helps appeal to the lowest common denominator, but yeah… I’ve never really liked it. And like you said, it’s further highlighted when the character is an adult, and is surrounded by more capable people.