Award winning author asks: 'Why aren't more books turned into games?'

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by TFeldt

Might as well dispel another common myth while I'm at it; roughly 40% of all "gamers" are women.

LOL. That report claims that 40% of "game players", not "gamers", are women.

My wife plays solitaire on her phone almost every day. I'm sure the ESA considers her a game player for their stats, but she certainly isn't a "gamer" by any stretch of the word.

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

But that's the point, they don't really want to compete with books, but create a sub-culture that incidentally destroys the reading habit, love of reading, whatever you want to call it .
Some come through OK , some combine the two, but a large number never "get" books, because they are "harder work", and require more imaginative powers within yourself.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with this. The majority of young people never got books long before there where video games (or TV for that matter). Reading is only one form of entertainment and not one everyone enjoys.

As for the comment(s) about terrible storytelling and voice acting, I don't think games as a whole are necessarily a storytelling medium. Most are (and should be in my opinion) first and foremost about gameplay.
Me, I mostly play RPGs where story is (IMO) far more important than in every other genre and even there I'm far more forgiving for moderately bad writing and acting than I would be in books and films, simply because games provide more than just story.

[TFeldt]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

LOL. That report claims that 40% of "game players", not "gamers", are women.

My wife plays solitaire on her phone almost every day. I'm sure the ESA considers her a game player for their stats, but she certainly isn't a "gamer" by any stretch of the word.

Hence the quotation marks. The line is rather blurred these days, considering just about everybody plays games on their smart phones. The original term "gamer" simply meant "somebody who plays video games" (or rather, GAME playeR).

These days it's almost like there's a stigma attached to it, mostly because the term invokes the rather archaic vision of 14 year old boys playing atari games. Or rabid xbox/playstation fanboys. Everybody who buys and plays a game is a gamer from the industry's point of view, and that's the view I subscribe to.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with this. The majority of young people never got books long before there where video games (or TV for that matter). Reading is only one form of entertainment and not one everyone enjoys.

Don't sink to his level mate, he's just trolling. It's been the same every time a new form of entertainment arrived and overtook the old. Oh no, radio is killing books, video killed the radio (star), and now Ebert is proclaiming that movies are vastly superior to games despite admitting that he's never played a modern game. Like getting sex advice from a virgin.

Really, he compared the entire video game industry to the equivalent of playing with a jo-jo. Let him sit in his corner and shout his lungs out.

[viviena]

Originally Posted by TFeldt

These days it's almost like there's a stigma attached to it, mostly because the term invokes the rather archaic vision of 14 year old boys playing atari games. Or rabid xbox/playstation fanboys. Everybody who buys and plays a game is a gamer from the industry's point of view, and that's the view I subscribe to.

I thought that stigma had been around for a while, though my understanding of the stereotype is 'greasy men in their 20s living in their mums' basements'. Yet at the same time I don't think some gamers do themselves any favours by insisting that people who play The Sims 3, for example, aren't real gamers because such games don't require typical twitch or fast reaction skills. Honestly, I think the Sims franchise is one of the best examples of what games are capable of in terms of storytelling, and I expect more game adaptations of novels, films, whatever, in the future to have more sandbox elements rather than painstakingly follow narrow, linear narratives borrowed from those mediums.

I've long been interested in finding games that balance good storytelling with good gameplay, hence my preference for a 'good game over a good book' -- it's rare enough to find the former, in my experience! Nowadays, I tend to think that's it's not so much the story of a game that's important to me but rather how the story is executed. Treating a game as a story with interactive elements, like those Japanese visual novels, is tedious. With a game, for me pacing, balance, and involvement is much more important than the actual story. In the case of RPGs, which are typically the most story-heavy game genre, I'm willing to put up with a run-of-the-mill or mediocre storyline if the game does a good job of making me become immersed as the protagonist. The Mass Effect series, with its convo choices and fully fleshed out personalities despite a bog standard storyline, has a good 'storytelling' experience. The Witcher was similar, enough that I was even willing to put up with its silly 'conquest cards'. (That's a pet peeve of mine, that currently the games industry in general seems to think that 'mature storytelling' consists of 'realistic' tits and gore, but that's a topic for another time.)

As for complaints about poor scripting, voice acting, etc... Well, gaming is still a very young medium compared to films and reading. Games are already much more sophisticated than ten years ago though, and as the budget and experience of making games grow, I'm sure games will become more sophisticated.

[jhempel24]

because the ideas being used in games from books have already been done to death. I mean, do you REALLY need another strategy game based on a book when it could be an original story? It's the reason the Game of Thrones game isn't following the story of the books, but the history of the world.

Do we really need ANOTHER zombie game after Left 4 Dead or Dead Island?

The concepts have been done to death, and gamers are clamoring for more original writing and story telling, not just re-hashed stories.

[TFeldt]

Originally Posted by viviena

Yet at the same time I don't think some gamers do themselves any favours by insisting that people who play The Sims 3, for example, aren't real gamers because such games don't require typical twitch or fast reaction skills.

I accept no personal responsibility, nor do I make any excuses for the dregs of the gaming industry. Happen to agree with you that the sims was a landmark achievement since it was one of the first truly massive stepping stones to get "regular people" into a deeper, more involved type of interactive fiction. You're welcome to disagree with me but I've always thought the sims was a non-linear evolution of the "choose your own adventure" type of books.

Nowadays, I tend to think that's it's not so much the story of a game that's important to me but rather how the story is executed. Treating a game as a story with interactive elements, like those Japanese visual novels, is tedious.

Ah, that's just beautiful. Via my (quite substantial) amount of posts in the this thread I've tried to convey two basic principles; non-interactive fiction does not translate well into interactive fiction, or vice versa, and the gaming industry has given up chasing licenses in favor of developing their own opuses since they understand the former fact.

Your comment is truly spot on. What would you say to the statement "the story is what is important in a book"? It makes sense, there isn't anything to a book beyond the story. But I'd like to change it somewhat into "the experience is what is important about a book". This, more generic description, fits even better with interactive fiction since there's more levels to it.

Despite the trollish behavior of some of the other posters in this thread I do agree with him about one thing, video games doesn't require as much imagination from the player as books do. But on the other hand it requires several layers of additional craftmanship to make everything mesh, or it'll be regarded as a failure. "Sure the graphics are great but the music is just horrific", "Good grief, look at that cheesy cutscene", "I'm getting motion sickness from the movement system", et cetera. When everything meshes it doesn't matter if one particular aspect is left out or not, the -experience- (as you underlined) is what is important. The lasting, overarching impression you get.

This is also what I was trying to get at in my original post where I claimed that there is in fact a market for book to game conversions, but they'd have to only license the world or the concept and not the plot (since non-interactive to interactive fiction just doesn't translate, sorry about repeating myself but I know of no shorter way to put it).

As for complaints about poor scripting, voice acting, etc... Well, gaming is still a very young medium compared to films and reading. Games are already much more sophisticated than ten years ago though, and as the budget and experience of making games grow, I'm sure games will become more sophisticated.

Touché. The written word has been around for several thousand years, movies for 133, games for 35 (if you're generous).

[OtterBooks]

There's no point in making a game based on a book unless the book had unique concepts or storylines that couldn't be taken without violating copyright, or it had such popularity that its name had big marketing power. Taking zombies as an example, I haven't seen many zombie books that stray from the "zombies running amok" concept. The ones that do, such as World War Z's oral history style, may not make for good games anyway.

So far as having a good story/characters: as we've seen in movie adaptations, a good novel does not always equal a good movie. Writing for games is a unique craft, so they would need good game writers no matter what. If they have good game writers, they can likely craft their own story, since nobody has a copyright on zombies running amok.

And good game writing exists. Sometimes it's better than the literature in the genre.

[Seli]

One of the strengths of computer games are the stories that the game player can make for themselves. Lots of successful games are environments in which the player can create a story rather than a story which the player experiences.
This is not readily compatible with the way stories as they are told in books. Which is probably one of the reasons that book environments rather than stories are used as a basis for games.

Adventure games are probably on of the few genres that can adapt a book directly, and those are a small niche nowadays. And even there most examples I can think of take the setting and tell a new story (discworld games, sherlock holmes games, even the witcher games if you regard those as a rpg/adventure game hybrid)

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by TFeldt

The original term "gamer" simply meant "somebody who plays video games" (or rather, GAME playeR).

Actually, the term predates video games and was applied to anyone who played games as a hobby, particularly wargames or (pen-and-paper) RPGs.

Of course, a lot of that demographic ended up playing videogames once they moved beyond arcade-type games.

[TFeldt]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Actually, the term predates video games and was applied to anyone who played games as a hobby, particularly wargames or (pen-and-paper) RPGs.

Of course, a lot of that demographic ended up playing videogames once they moved beyond arcade-type games.

Good point, I stand corrected. Move to have the term "video" stricken from my statement.