Story in games

[Musashi]

I agree with what pxib said.  But I don't think it precludes anything about the less is more theory of story in games.  I'm not opposed to story helping a shitty game at all.

However I've been giving it some thought, and trying to come up with a better way to get my point across without pissing on the story people.  I don't know if the following accomplishes that for you.  But here it is anyway.  If you can show me a game where you think the story makes the game a classic, I'm willing to bet we can find gameplay elements that make it so as least as much if not more in every case.

Edit:  Inb4 Portal:  Portal gun.

[Lantyssa]

Deus Ex.

[Velorath]

I agree with what pxib said.  But I don't think it precludes anything about the less is more theory of story in games.  I'm not opposed to story helping a shitty game at all.

However I've been giving it some thought, and trying to come up with a better way to get my point across without pissing on the story people.  I don't know if the following accomplishes that for you.  But here it is anyway.  If you can show me a game where you think the story makes the game a classic, I'm willing to bet we can find gameplay elements that make it so as least as much if not more in every case.

Edit:  Inb4 Portal:  Portal gun.

- Red Dead Redemption.  The gameplay mechanics are largely ripped from the GTA games.  The setting and the story are what make the game.

- Final Fantasy VI and Planescape: Torment as representatives of Japanese and Western RPG's respectively.  Neither one is considered a classic because of their gameplay.

[Musashi]

Deus Ex.

It came out at a time when first person shooters were relatively in their infancy.  Story didn't sell it even then.  It had above average graphics for the time, and promised what was then sort of new FPS gameplay.  People were buying shooters just to see how awesome the game allowed them to blow shit up.  That's all without even mentioning that this game was one of the first to combine different genres of gameplay in a totally awesome way.  I don't think that can be understated.  And while the story may have been good, the gameplay was classic.

- Red Dead Redemption.  The gameplay mechanics are largely ripped from the GTA games.  The setting and the story are what make the game.

- Final Fantasy VI and Planescape: Torment as representatives of Japanese and Western RPG's respectively.  Neither one is considered a classic because of their gameplay.

RDR isn't a classic.  And people didn't buy it for the story.  Just like they don't buy GTA for the story.  They bought it to shoot people while running over hookers on a horse and then drag their bodies around.

FF6 is the culmination of several years of progression in the JRPG genre.  People knew they were going to get story, sure. But they also knew they were going to level up, fight monsters, ride a Chocobo, and eventually pilot an airship.  If you take the story out of every JRPG ever made and just put in progressively stripping hentai cut-scenes, well I'm sure you get the point.

Planescape may have a great story, but again that's not the point.  There are are a shitload of RPG staples set in the AD&D rules.

You can't just say that any of these games are classics because of story alone.

[Rendakor]

Heavy Rain.

[Velorath]

Deus Ex.

It came out at a time when first person shooters were relatively in their infancy.  Story didn't sell it even then.  It had above average graphics for the time, and promised what was then sort of new FPS gameplay.  People were buying shooters just to see how awesome the game allowed them to blow shit up.  That's all without even mentioning that this game was one of the first to combine different genres of gameplay in a totally awesome way.  I don't think that can be understated.  And while the story may have been good, the gameplay was classic.

- Red Dead Redemption.  The gameplay mechanics are largely ripped from the GTA games.  The setting and the story are what make the game.

- Final Fantasy VI and Planescape: Torment as representatives of Japanese and Western RPG's respectively.  Neither one is considered a classic because of their gameplay.

RDR isn't a classic.  And people didn't buy it for the story.  Just like they don't buy GTA for the story.  They bought it to shoot people while running over hookers on a horse and then drag their bodies around.

FF6 is the culmination of several years of progression in the JRPG genre.  People knew they were going to get story, sure. But they also knew they were going to level up, fight monsters, ride a Chocobo, and eventually pilot an airship.  If you take the story out of every JRPG ever made and just put in progressively stripping hentai cut-scenes, well I'm sure you get the point.

Planescape may have a great story, but again that's not the point.  There are are a shitload of RPG staples set in the AD&D rules.

You can't just say that any of these games are classics because of story alone.

Sure I can.  People still talk about FFVI and Torment to this day, and pretty much never in context of mechanics.  If as you say, Torment is just one of a shitload of AD&D based RPG's, and FF6 was just part of the progression of JRPG's, why is it these two games are remembered so fondly?  Because of the fucking story.  Nobody is going to tell you that you should go play FFVI because you can ride a chocobo, fight monsters, and level up, and nobody is going to tell you to play Torment because it's based on AD&D rules.  You asked for games that are considered classics because of their story, and you were going to show us that those games have gameplay elements that have more to do with them being classic than the story.  Unless you're tyring to argue that every single AD&D based game, and every FF is a classic, then you're wrong.

As for RDR, it's showing up as the top pick on a lot of GOTY lists, and a lot of those lists mention the story, setting, and voice acting as some of the main reasons why.  The gameplay is decent, but certainly not anything revolutionary if you've played any of the last few GTA games.  Take out the story of that game, and you have a sandbox without any sort of context that would get old after the third or fourth time you left someone hogtied on the train tracks.

Also, you've gone from "If you can show me a game where you think the story makes the game a classic, I'm willing to bet we can find gameplay elements that make it so as least as much if not more in every case.", to arguing  "people didn't buy it for the story".  Are you interested in what people actually got out of these games, or what their expectations were going in?

[Rendakor]

Planescape may have a great story, but again that's not the point.  There are are a shitload of RPG staples set in the AD&D rules.

That is exactly the point. There are a shitload of RPGs with D&D rules, but which one does everyone remember? Same goes for FFVI; the mechanics, graphics, etc. were virtually identical to FFIV but which one is consistently cited as one of the best RPGs of all time?

We get it, you don't care about story in games. You mash A through the dialog and skip the cutscenes. Not everyone is like you.

[Vision]

I agree with what pxib said.  But I don't think it precludes anything about the less is more theory of story in games.  I'm not opposed to story helping a shitty game at all.

However I've been giving it some thought, and trying to come up with a better way to get my point across without pissing on the story people.  I don't know if the following accomplishes that for you.  But here it is anyway.  If you can show me a game where you think the story makes the game a classic, I'm willing to bet we can find gameplay elements that make it so as least as much if not more in every case.

Edit:  Inb4 Portal:  Portal gun.

Silent Hill 2
Gameplay was terrible. The atmosphere, music, and story are what made it.

[Sjofn]

(the story of HL2 is never explained.).

If you need it spelled out for you go here: http://members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/index.htm but all of the info on that site is available in game, it just isn't presented in the nice narrative style you seem to associate with "story."   Its one of the oldest tricks in the book, but Valve does it better than most: Show, don't tell.

How is that "Show don't tell"?  Serious question.  In traditional media, a headline saying "Aliens invade Earth" is the exact opposite of Show, Don't Tell (I.E. show the invasion happening, don't just tell us it happened, be it from other characters, the narrator, or reading a newspaper headline).  Why is that different in a video game?  This is why I'm having trouble in this thread, in traditional media, these things are defined a certain way, but if you try to apply it to video games, it gets all mucked up.

I think it counts as "showing" rather than "telling" because you stumble onto a lot of it (or so I assume in HL2, I never played it, but that's mostly how it worked in Portal) rather than have it splash across your screen to spell it out like in a movie.



It's funny, I am actually in the middle of a game where the story is keeping me fighting the good fight against the game trying to ruin all my fun. Mass Effect's PC port is ... not good. The controls are terrible. The Mako is so bad I am actually starting to enjoy it for its sheer shittiness (I'm weird, I know). There is a lot of running with nothing but the sound of my footsteps to keep me company, because my group doesn't banter, so it feels like an even longer jog than it probably would otherwise. The quest directions are a lot vaguer than I can tolerate (and I can actually tolerate a decent amount). The minimap is almost completely useless and the regular map only slightly useful. But I really like the setting, and I want to see where the story is going. So I will trudge through my personal water planet, complaining bitterly that this part is horrible, because that story carrot is RIGHT THERE.

[Ingmar]

Planescape may have a great story, but again that's not the point.  There are are a shitload of RPG staples set in the AD&D rules.

And there are a shitload of other games that use those AD&D rules and aren't classic. You're kind of moving the goalposts here. Planescape is considered a classic where say IWD2 or Secret of the Silver Blades aren't entirely because of the story.

[Margalis]

Video games cover too wide a spectrum of products to make sweeping generalizations about how much story a game needs. Does a sound novel game need a good story? Yes, that's the entire point. Does Wii Fit or Tetris need a story? No.

This is straying pretty far from the OP. The point there was not that story is super important or super useless, rather that for the poster story - specifically narrative - often gets in the way of the experience. Something I agree with.

[Azazel]

- Red Dead Redemption.  The gameplay mechanics are largely ripped from the GTA games.  The setting and the story are what make the game.

I'm still bumbling my way through RDR. I'm not sure if I'd describe the story as compelling or good, as it's pretty damned thin. The gameplay is also nothing amazing, to be quite honest. I'd say it's standouts are atmosphere, characters and setting.

edit - fixed messed up quotes

[LK]

People remember stories more than they do a system of game mechanics. If the game is decent enough but has an amazing story, people will play through it. But will they keep playing it over and over after the story is done? A "good game" is fun and memorable for that sake. See: StarCraft or Counter-strike. Good stories you can make through a game experience also help people remember a particular game: Planetside, for example. I feel it's a better idea to argue on the individual merits of one product rather than to compare them to some industry-wide standard which doesn't exist.

Great games from a bygone era are always relative to that era with their mechanics. Good stories are timeless, and your brain is willing to look past the era's game mechanics and graphics and color them in your head because of your extreme positive experience with the story.

Special Mention: Red Dead Redemption: Expertly crafted. I liked the voiceovers, and I liked the scenario. Cinematics and pacing were stand-out, similar to how True Grit by the Coens was stand-out. The story was light... what was important was the exploration of the themes, and the philosophical debates that John often found himself in with the other characters who were of an extreme position. John was a moderate, seeking balance in life, and provided a perfect counter-point for the people he found himself interacting with (who, it should be mentioned, never budged from their passionate position by John's logical arguments). It was an examination of life in the West. I think the only major developments that occurred in the story took place before the game began and after John returned to his family.

[Ingmar]

- Red Dead Redemption.  The gameplay mechanics are largely ripped from the GTA games.  The setting and the story are what make the game.

I'm still bumbling my way through RDR. I'm not sure if I'd describe the story as compelling or good, as it's pretty damned thin. The gameplay is also nothing amazing, to be quite honest. I'd say it's standouts are atmosphere, characters and setting.

- Final Fantasy VI and Planescape: Torment as representatives of Japanese and Western RPG's respectively.  Neither one is considered a classic because of their gameplay.

Characters and setting are story though. I don't think we're just talking merely about plot are we?

[Margalis]

The OP is pretty clearly talking about actual plot and not setting.

[Malakili]

I was talking mostly about plot/narrative when I made the OP yes, but the conversation has evolved past that at this point I think.  I've talked a bit in this thread about how I like how Valve tends to tell their stories or let the player discover bits and pieces in putting together a picture of whats happening in their game world.  That kind of story (without analyzing the word story too much) i'm on board with for the most part.   

What I had in mind specifically when I made the OP is stuff like Dragon Age and mostly RPGs in general, but even something like Assassin's creed where you have pretty decent mechanics but the game tries really fucking hard to make me give a crap about its story that is more or less terrible.

[Quinton]

Sometimes, even if the story is potentially interesting, the presentation is obnoxious.  The "30 minutes of opening cutscenes before you can do anything" model of story introduction drives me nuts, for example.  I really do want some meaningful story going on for RPGs and whatnot, but I'm also here to play a game.  The two should work together, not fight each other.

[Musashi]

Yea I'm pretty much talking specifically about narrative.

Also, all these games that are being pointed out aren't necessarily classic by contemporary measure.  They're classic within our circle, and honestly I'm okay with them being so.  What I'm not okay with is them being compared to games with lasting cultural impact on a much larger scale.  A game like TF2 is accessible precisely because it doesn't shove a whole bunch of pulp dreck up your ass.  Of course accessibility doesn't breed success.  But accessibility combined with pure distilled awesome in every possible way, such as in TF2, does.  The accessibility breeds adoption, and three or four months later you're showing 'Gentlemen' memes to your co-workers. 

Every game pointed out on this page of the thread is a RPG.  So at best you're making the point that narrative is important in RPGs.  I guess I can sort of agree with that.  But I still think that narrative is important only in as far as it smoothly transitions between gameplay types.  And by smoothly, I mean quickly.  And by quickly, I mean less is more.

[LK]

TF2 doesn't have a serious story; it's entertainment, not art, though it might be classified as artful entertainment? It does a damn good job keeping some consistency and explaining things in an entertaining way while at the same time being completely detached from reality.

Regardless, it is a solid game, in the same category as StarCraft, Modern Warfare, Halo, Civilization, Counter-Strike etc. in that people want to play it over and over and over.

[Velorath]

Yea I'm pretty much talking specifically about narrative.

Also, all these games that are being pointed out aren't necessarily classic by contemporary measure.  They're classic within our circle, and honestly I'm okay with them being so.  What I'm not okay with is them being compared to games with lasting cultural impact on a much larger scale.  A game like TF2 is accessible precisely because it doesn't shove a whole bunch of pulp dreck up your ass.  Of course accessibility doesn't breed success.  But accessibility combined with pure distilled awesome in every possible way, such as in TF2, does.  The accessibility breeds adoption, and three or four months later you're showing 'Gentlemen' memes to your co-workers. 

Every game pointed out on this page of the thread is a RPG.  So at best you're making the point that narrative is important in RPGs.  I guess I can sort of agree with that.  But I still think that narrative is important only in as far as it smoothly transitions between gameplay types.  And by smoothly, I mean quickly.  And by quickly, I mean less is more.

Wait, are you saying TF2 is an example of a game with a lasting cultural impact?

[Sheepherder]

Planescape may have a great story, but again that's not the point.  There are are a shitload of RPG staples set in the AD&D rules.

And there are a shitload of other games that use those AD&D rules and aren't classic. You're kind of moving the goalposts here. Planescape is considered a classic where say IWD2 or Secret of the Silver Blades aren't entirely because of the story.

That, and the fact that the Infinity Engine implementation of 2ed AD&D rules is so horrifyingly neckbearded that if you play the game for the system you are officially the most broken motherfucker who could ever conceivably exist.  If you walked into the room at the exact moment Hitler was fucking his niece he'd look over and tell you what a fucking headcase you are, and how he's glad that history will remember him kindly compared to you.

[Rendakor]

Every game pointed out on this page of the thread is a RPG.  So at best you're making the point that narrative is important in RPGs.  I guess I can sort of agree with that.  But I still think that narrative is important only in as far as it smoothly transitions between gameplay types.  And by smoothly, I mean quickly.  And by quickly, I mean less is more.

Red Dead Redemption is an RPG? Silent Hill 2? Heavy Rain? 

[Velorath]

Sometimes, even if the story is potentially interesting, the presentation is obnoxious.  The "30 minutes of opening cutscenes before you can do anything" model of story introduction drives me nuts, for example.

I recently had a bad experience like that with Dead Rising 2, which was compounded by frequent loading screens.  It shouldn't take that long to set up a zombie outbreak story, and Dead Rising isn't exactly something people are playing for the narrative.

[Malakili]

Arise!

I came across this article today and it made me want to revisit the topic:  http://www.dinofarmgames.com/?p=219

Snippet:

Since digital game technology has allowed for games to include stories, more and more of them have chosen to do so.  Some of the “greatest video games of all time” not only include story, but are even based on story.  Games like The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy VII, and Metal Gear Solid set the standard for the modern video game.  Very few in the game development world are willing to question these sacred games, which I think limits us to only ever being as good as them.  The real question I think we have to ask is:  is the presupposition that “games should have a story” helping, or hurting digital games?  From the title of this post, it should be clear that I think the latter is the case.

I've still tended to dislike story recently, though I think that something like Deus Ex 3 is the best recent example of a story that was interesting, so I have to temper whatever I'm thinking with the fact that I have at least one recent example that I really enjoyed.   Either way, I think this blog post has an interesting point and in some ways summarizes what I was trying to say back in the OP when I made, but definitely articulates it better.  If anyone is still interested in the topic I'd be interested to know what you think about the argument in the link.

[Hawkbit]

Some amount of story is important to a game.  It draws the player in to the world and creates an investment.  The bigger issue is that it is damn hard to find someone who can both write a damn good story and understand what can/can't be done within the structure of a game.  Those folks are rare. 

Raph made a statement awhile back that said something such as the best designers are those that get a liberal arts four year, for the worldly knowledge, but afterwards go crazy with programming/design.  That way it gets all bases covered. 

Anyways, I'm a big fan of story, it's just that most games have weak story lines these days.  Or, a great story but the game is atrocious. 

[Musashi]

Bad Gorilla.  Is Princess.  Get.  End.

[LK]

Deus Ex: HR seems to be the latest example of great story, as Malakili mentions.

Deus Ex: HR did a good job taking a "theme" and a concept to explore and weaving that throughout the entire game, from the world's style and setup to the individual missions that play out and the characters who feature most prominently. So far it's felt like any activity I'm doing and any line of dialog I hear feeds into the story or is relevant. The writing is top-notch too.

I can't speak for the overall main path narrative (still playing), but all the characters seem very three-dimensional (lol), and the interactions feel real.

What really gets me is when the different ways I can phrase dialog choices in mini-game segments reinforces the same core of who Adam Jensen's character is. For instance, I can empathize, placate, defend myself, etc, and I still believe all those interactions in normal conversation are the character that I'm playing rather than picking a choice in the moment that makes it obvious that Adam is either a goodie two-shoes or an asshole (something that could conflict with the core of his character or the character I'm playing).

Overall, I'm really enjoying the exploration that Deus Ex is offering. Gameplay? Standard.  

[Bunk]

I recently had an argument with someone on whether or not Deus Ex 3 and Mass Effect 2 were essentially the same type of game or not. I argued that there was a pretty significant difference, even if both qualify as story based RPGs.

There were two big things about Deus EX that made it different for me: one, that so much of the story and background elements were just out there in the world and it was up to you whether or not you hunted them down, and two - how I actually played the game affected the story. By that, I mean who I killed or only knocked out, alarms I did or did not set off, places I chose to explore on my own, things like that. It wasn't just limited to dialog wheel choices. People playing through Deus Ex without killing a single person are going to have played/told a significantly different story than those who went through it Gears of War style. The over arching narative may have remained the same, but my "role" in the story changed significantly. At least thats how it came across to me.

Story matters in a huge way to me, but it can be presented in many ways. My top three recent games are DE3, Portal 2, and ME2. Each told a story in a different manner, but the story was a huge part of what made the game great. Oblivion was great to me because the openness of the world design let me adapt a story to my  character as I saw fit. The actual "story" in Oblivion was pure ass, and if anything was a detriment to the game.

[Ghambit]

To me the simple truth is story only works if it's essential to advancing the gameplay.  DE3 does this best, but only in the eyes of a Sandbox - you can still PLAY the game and not worry much about failing if you dont pay attention to story.  ME2 is great with story, but in this sense it's still "on rails" regardless of the story-wheel...  you could close your eyes, choose whatever, and you'll still make it to the end.

Lost in today's games are what was so great during the emergent phases of digital gaming, that is, w/o paying attention to the story, you failed.  Games like Zork, Starflight, and pretty much every Sierra game are good examples.

However, when the solution is brought up in the MMO forums, people scoff.  No one wants to have to draw a map, learn where something is or what to do through context, etc.  Which basically means, they dont want story.  Or at least, they dont THINK they want story.

I'm of the belief if you went back to hardcore story-gaming that people would really enjoy it.  No maps, no "!",no quest log, just you and the game as it's written.

[Ingmar]

Nobody wants to draw a map, because having to map manually sucks. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting story.

[Rasix]

It's pretty annoying nowadays when something doesn't have a minimap (where applicable).  It's almost a non-starter for me. Same with a quest log.  

It's fucking annoying not knowing where you're going or having to read the dev's mind as to what the hell you're supposed to be doing next. Also, god forbid you have to put the game down for a while and pick it back up.  

A good portion of my youth was spent trying to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to be doing in a game and where in the hell I have to do it.  These were not quality gaming moments, these were nearly controller chucking moments. Thank god for Gamefaqs.  

Don't confuse "story" or "world" with quality of life improvements.  We're not fucking psychic and some of us don't have hours to wander around a game like a punch drunk goon.

[Velorath]

Arise!

I came across this article today and it made me want to revisit the topic:  http://www.dinofarmgames.com/?p=219

Snippet:

Since digital game technology has allowed for games to include stories, more and more of them have chosen to do so.  Some of the “greatest video games of all time” not only include story, but are even based on story.  Games like The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy VII, and Metal Gear Solid set the standard for the modern video game.  Very few in the game development world are willing to question these sacred games, which I think limits us to only ever being as good as them.  The real question I think we have to ask is:  is the presupposition that “games should have a story” helping, or hurting digital games?  From the title of this post, it should be clear that I think the latter is the case.

I've still tended to dislike story recently, though I think that something like Deus Ex 3 is the best recent example of a story that was interesting, so I have to temper whatever I'm thinking with the fact that I have at least one recent example that I really enjoyed.   Either way, I think this blog post has an interesting point and in some ways summarizes what I was trying to say back in the OP when I made, but definitely articulates it better.  If anyone is still interested in the topic I'd be interested to know what you think about the argument in the link.

Only have time to skim it, but even in doing that I noticed a few things I disagree with:

Another interesting difference is that generally, games are meant to be experienced many times, and stories are meant to be experienced once.

A good story can be enjoyed over and over again.  In many of the best ones you pick up on new things each time you read/watch it.

We try to make our games look and play out like movies, because we respect movies.  It follows, then, that the more a game looks like a movie, the more worthy of respect it is.

No, a lot of developers make their games look and play out like movies, because as I once heard Ken Levine put it, people already know how to leverage emotion through movies and animation.  People are still learning how to do it in games through other means.

One common apologetic I’ve heard in response to all this is, “but dude, Planescape Torment had an amazing story”, or “Final Fantasy Tactics had a pretty involved story and its gameplay was awesome!”  My answer is that yes, I agree with both of those statements.  But even still, in both games, the marriage of game and story did harm both.  Torment was great, but would it have been even greater as a novel (assuming that it was written by the same author or an author of equal skill)?  I think absolutely.  

And I strongly disagree with this one.  I think Planescape: Torment would have been shit as a novel since it would lack the same kind of personal investment, if you stripped out the story and just left the gameplay, you wouldn't really be left with a game worth playing.

[Ingmar]

Yeah he's completely wrong about Torment.

[Ironwood]

Because it fucks his argument so badly he has had to rewrite it about 4 times now.

[Margalis]

Another interesting difference is that generally, games are meant to be experienced many times, and stories are meant to be experienced once.

Most people don't make it to the end of most games a single time. The average game is experienced something like 0.7 times.

This piece commits the sin that most of these pieces do, which is to be stupidly narrow minded. I REALLY wish people who fancy themselves video game intellectuals would allow for the completely obvious reality that there are different types of games. To me this is not a difficult concept but there are a sadly high number of people who can't wrap their heads around it. Yes, there are games like Chess or Tetris that are about challenge, win conditions and clear rules that you can play hundreds of times, but there are also experiential games like Uncharted that are more about enjoying the ride than the specifics of the mechanics.

If someone wrote a blog about how every good TV show needs a hot wife, a fat husband and a laugh track we'd think they were crazy and stupid, but that level of analysis is pretty routine in gaming blogs from people who fancy themselves serious thinkers. It's the type of analysis that springs from at most 10 seconds of thought.