http://www.amazon.co.uk/Visual-Story...2640259&sr=1-1
Ok. So I got tipped off on another forum about this book and I thought I'd share it with you guys.
It makes a pretty good read, (well so far...).
Could even help when it comes to designing video games as well, (afterall, video games are a media like film, but of course with some key differences, but its closest to film and I should imagine a lot of techniques discussed could be adapted or put into video games as well (at least in terms of storytelling)
Just incase that link doesn't work I'll put the title down:
Visual Storytelling (Screenwriting Blue Books)
EDIT: A little warning though, it analyses the films "The Artist" and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" so there could be some spoilers there.
(I personally have stopped at The Artist because I want to watch that movie first. I might buy it on Blu Ray since its supposed to be a good film anyway)
EDIT 2: In hindsight. Looking back on what I've read but also on what egoraptor was saying in his Megaman Sequalitis and the recent Demons' Souls Game Grumps video, I wonder if I should design a game thats more intuitive.
One that has very simple core mechanics, ones that you could figure out visually, but also have a good level of challenge and hidden depth like Demon's Souls/ Dark Souls have as well.
I guess its the influence of oldschool games. I've been playing those alot lately.
Ghouls 'n' Ghosts, Contra, Battletoads, Ninja Gaiden, Mega Man
But also stuff like Mario and Zelda, and Little Samson.
It must be hard to get that balance between challenge and cheapness, but I think I got the secret.
Its visual cues and clues!
Even Rare, when they made Battletoads, a game thats so hard it makes grown men cry like they've just come back from an onion festival, made that game beatable. Lets take than infamous cycle level into account for a moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1Qp6hupX8
That sequence is ALL about timing and skill, and patterns.
It could be even harder than what it is if you take away that clue, (and even more evil, if the pattern was randomised! >;D). Those obstacles flashing on the screen to tell you where they are going to be.
You don't get an explanation for that because even for a kid at that point its pretty obvious, (plus you know, if you die you only lose a life. Its a good exchange of value there. A life for that information that you need to dodge those).
Plus look again at those patterns. They don't change too much, its either up, down, jump, or ramp.
You get the hang of those, then another visual cue, a short wall that blue and higher up. Basically, don't jump.
And then another, blue ramp.
(What is dickish there is that they put it straight after the don't jump, but again its only a life that you lose there. Life for lesson)
Then it introduces other cues, again, all blue meaning Avoid, (except for the ramp which has already been established you jump into).
The exclamation mark warns you that there are no ramps and you need to jump!
What ultimately makes the sequence unfair, is the last sequence. It goes so fast and pushes your timing and positioning to its extreme, that many people, even when they know HOW to do it, just can't.
Now you see, thats where there needs to be a bit of balance. Which is why I like the idea of branching games. Different tiers of reward for those with more skill.
If you fail that kind sequence in a modern game, I think it would be better if, instead of death, you either drop onto a lower skill tier path, or you have to spend some extra time on an easier but longer section to get to the next part, (but with the cost of losing a item/time/achievement that gets you a better reward/ending (then that encourages you to go back when your skills have improved and try to get that collectable)).
See, that still encourages people to play to the end, (which a lot of people still don't do, even now when games are fairer) but it rewards those that can do it, with something they would value.