Story in games

[Lantyssa]

The movies have helped prolong its shelf-life.  It'll be gone soon.  Most of the mania seems to be gone already.

[Malakili]

(Where are we, what is going on, who are we fighting?  No idea, never explained.).

But they really are explained.  Not fully, at least not yet, but "no idea" is going way over board.  These things are never TOLD to you explicitly, but there are hints everywhere if you are observant, some are still explicit like  these newspaper clippings and some are gleaned from looking at the state of the game world.

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.

[Musashi]

I'd almost certainly be spending all my quarters playing skee-ball. I never liked Donkey Kong, no matter how many times you try to tell me I did.  

As for "do demonstrably better in every measurable category" I'm going to have to ask for some Actual Research to be cited there. If you're just saying games like Madden and Mario Party are more popular than games like Mass Effect or the like, while that is absolutely true, it has nothing to do with the idea that having a story is actively bad, which seems to be the argument here. I like the movie comparison, frankly, so I'll go back to it. Would you argue that the fact that Transformers 2 made $400 million while The Hurt Locker made $16 million means that story in movies is a bad thing?

Alright, man.  Where is Transformers on this list?

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top  *

Now imagine in your head that kind of list for video games.  You're going to have to use your imagination because Metacritic's DB is currently down.  All of the top 50 movies are very story intensive.  Story is the measure by which we judge movies.  I'm not talking about gross.  I imagine that most of the top 50 video games are not very story intensive, or if they are have some other important game-play element that could also just as easily explain their awesomeness.

Okay, I'm going to admit I may have been reaching with 'demonstrably better in every category.'  It was late, and I'm a twat sometimes.  But I'm merely trying to hammer the point home that goddamn Mario is an inter-cultural icon.  If Mario came on your TV and said, "It's a me!  Let's give peace a chance!"  You could conceivably believe that some people's minds would change about war.

It's not that story in games is necessarily actively bad.  It's that in the vast majority of cases it gets far too much attention, while other more important areas of game-making are ignored.  Games are called games because one has fun playing them.  For most people, the mediocre story you get in games isn't what they signed up for.  People who did sign up for it are more than welcome to it.  All I'm trying to say is that both of us are probably better served if less time is spent on story and more time is spent on designing the game to be what it is.  And that of course is a fun experience whose story is mostly ancillary.

* Editor's Note:  I'm aware of the problems with these kinds of lists and do not need to be reminded that The Dark Knight is not the 10th best movie of all time.

[Ingmar]

I have to admit I also just don't care much for Mario games where he's not driving a little car around, or punching people. Apparently I'm just not a Nintendo guy. That aside, the counterpoint in the "everyone everywhere knows who this character is" set would be the Zelda games, which have added more and more story consistently over the years, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that that isn't a good thing for that franchise. (The gameplay on the other hand has changed very little other than going 3rd person 3D at some point.) And yes, I realize the story is essentially just a more and more complicated version of 'go get the princess', but there's more to story than just plot. Dialogue, characterization, setting, etc., all that stuff falls under 'story' for me.

I really think the evident greater popularity of the non-story based games out there (Bejeweled ahoy) mostly comes down to accessibility. "That big ape took the princess, now go get her back" requires a lot less backstory or exposition to get you on your path than something like a Dragon Age that has a whole setting it needs you to buy into to work. You flip on the switch and you're jumping over barrels. That's fine if all you want to do is jump over barrels, but games as a whole have a lot more potential than that.

EDIT: Also I don't want to make it sound like wanting to jump over barrels and get on with your life is bad, I play plenty of abstract games myself of course.

[pxib]

Five minutes with Ira Glass

Narrative is like a drug. Start a story, raise a few questions, and even if things seem dull or confusing now your audience will stick around just to see how it ends. There is an implicit promise, in telling a story, that it be worth that telling. Otherwise you would have kept your mouth shut.

So we slog through tedious RPG combat to get to the next dialogue tree, we keep playing a mediocre FPS in order to see to the next cutscene, we fight through a repetitive RTS because we want to know what happens to our ragtag band or our tiny nation or our reluctant hero or whatever. There's more story over the wall, and we claw our way over it like a junkie. It's a fundamental human need.

And if the ending is worth it, if the surprises are genuine, a lot of people will forget how crappy and generic the gameplay was.

[Malakili]

There is an implicit promise, in telling a story, that it be worth that telling. Otherwise you would have kept your mouth shut.

If video game developers are storytellers, then they are that friend that won't hang up the damned phone and instead wastes 2 hours telling you stupid trivial bullshit.

[Ingmar]

There is an implicit promise, in telling a story, that it be worth that telling. Otherwise you would have kept your mouth shut.

If video game developers are storytellers, then they are that friend that won't hang up the damned phone and instead wastes 2 hours telling you stupid trivial bullshit.

Yes, what this thread needs is more blanket generalizations.

[Malakili]

There is an implicit promise, in telling a story, that it be worth that telling. Otherwise you would have kept your mouth shut.

If video game developers are storytellers, then they are that friend that won't hang up the damned phone and instead wastes 2 hours telling you stupid trivial bullshit.

Yes, what this thread needs is more blanket generalizations.

I should've been more clear because I actually did have a point.  That point is that I've been burned too many times by games trumpeting story that end up being terrible to assume that the stories they are telling are actually worth my time to sit through.  At this point, I play a game because I want to play a game and I'll pick up a book or put in a movie if I want a story.

[Sheepherder]

I imagine that most of the top 50 video games are not very story intensive, or if they are have some other important game-play element that could also just as easily explain their awesomeness.

Both Morrowind and Diablo II sold four million copies, as far as I can tell.  Obviously Diablo II had too much story.

Oblivion sold 3 million copies, evidently Morrowind left most of them wanting more.  That's pretty much a clear example of selling the world over gameplay.

[LK]

Malakili, I am confused what the point of this is. You like competitive games. That's not an issue. I'd recommend LoL, TF2, etc. You're a big proponent of a player's story, one of experience and randomness that is different for everyone. OK!

So... you're not going to like a single player, you against the computer, more focus on player empowerment than player equality approach to gaming. Some people do like that.

What's the problem? How is someone who wouldn't like this because of the very nature of the beast in any kind of position to criticize or mock? There are good storytelling games and bad ones. It's an art, not a science like with competitive games or game mechanics. It's one you don't care for. *There's nothing wrong with that.*

[Velorath]

Malakili, I am confused what the point of this is. You like competitive games. That's not an issue. I'd recommend LoL, TF2, etc. You're a big proponent of a player's story, one of experience and randomness that is different for everyone. OK!

So... you're not going to like a single player, you against the computer, more focus on player empowerment than player equality approach to gaming. Some people do like that.

What's the problem? How is someone who wouldn't like this because of the very nature of the beast in any kind of position to criticize or mock? There are good storytelling games and bad ones. It's an art, not a science like with competitive games or game mechanics. It's one you don't care for. *There's nothing wrong with that.*

Going back to his first post, I think his point is that he didn't always feel this way, and was wondering what's changed and how others feel about the subject.  I just think some people have started arguing their positions a little more aggressively than needed.

[Malakili]

Malakili, I am confused what the point of this is. You like competitive games. That's not an issue. I'd recommend LoL, TF2, etc. You're a big proponent of a player's story, one of experience and randomness that is different for everyone. OK!

So... you're not going to like a single player, you against the computer, more focus on player empowerment than player equality approach to gaming. Some people do like that.

What's the problem? How is someone who wouldn't like this because of the very nature of the beast in any kind of position to criticize or mock? There are good storytelling games and bad ones. It's an art, not a science like with competitive games or game mechanics. It's one you don't care for. *There's nothing wrong with that.*

Going back to his first post, I think his point is that he didn't always feel this way, and was wondering what's changed and how others feel about the subject.  I just think some people have started arguing their positions a little more aggressively than needed.

Yea, going back to the OP I was focusing more on if story changed, or if I changed, or if some combination of the two changed over the years that can account for what amounts to a pretty radical shift in how I play games and what kinds of games I like.  It has evolved into a more general story discussion there, which is alright at this point.  I think the answer to my OP question is more me-centered than games in the last few years-centered.

[LK]

Ok. Here's your answer: in a traditional game development studio structure, none of the principals (designer, producer, artist, programmer) are guaranteed to be "strong" in storytelling qualities. That would be a writer  or interactive storyteller's strengths. Moreover, none of the people I've mentioned are in full control of the game. They are individual elements, none of whom's vision has a strong effect on the overall product. It is the game's director or senior leadership team that weaves the story throughout every facet of the game. The games you've quoted (ESPECIALLY Metal Gear, Bioware games, and maybe Valve) have very strong leaders making the designers, artists, programmers and producers bring their efforts together to create the experiences people enjoy. Their background includes the skills and experience to create a compelling, story-driven game.

Most game studios do not either have strong directors (only business types and producers), aren't making story-based games (or it's not the focus), or have a leadership structure that does not understand narrative storytelling in games (business or other background, directing the game without the appropriate skill set.)

[LK]

Two notes: Obsidian has benefitted and gotten the, as I call it, Bioware-Lite moniker by having Chris Avellone for a founder.

Second: it is very, very hard to make a good game like Bioware, Kojima, Valve and the rest do. Blizzard doesn't even try... that's not the point for them, and they know where their developer's strengths lie. If they do try (as they did in SC2), they will be hampered by their own IP's qualities that do not make for strong stories. Just strong characters / archetypes / designs and settings

[Velorath]

For the record, Kojima is absolute shit when it comes to story.

[Sjofn]

I ... I don't even know that we played the same game.

I'm starting to wonder myself.  The Portal I played was a fun puzzle FPS with some dark humor, what you're describing is some kind of psychological horror thing.  I never got this "OMG SHIT IS GETTING REAL" feeling you describe, I was too busy making turrets cry and laughing at the companion cube jokes to really feel any of the urgency that you're describing.

I think maybe I'm getting caught up in differences of definition.  What are you guys thinking of when you say that Portal (or HL2 or whatever) is a good story?  I'm looking at traditional stuff like characters, pacing, tension, and so on, and in those areas, Portal doesn't do well as a narrative.  But I'm starting to think (so maybe I'm a bit slot to catch on, shut up) that people are seeing some games (like Portal, or HL2) as something other than a traditional narrative, but other games (like, say, Halo, maybe) remain narratives.  And so Halo fails as a narrative, while Portal succeeds as a whatever-it-is.  So what is it you guys are seeing in Portal or HL2 or whatever that makes them "good" but which is absent in something like Unreal or Doom?  What are the qualifications for a "good" story in such an environment?  What is it you like about Portal, what does it succeed at that Crysis doesn't?

I think one's Portal experience has something to do with their personality, a little, and how easily they can merrily play along with the game in order to see a tale told. I am very quick to immerse myself in a game (unless it keeps insisting on kicking me out of it) if it has any story at all it wants to tell. It's sort of related to suspension of disbelief, I think, but not quite that. So while I will, of course, grin at the black humor in Portal, I will also think, "Jesus Christ, is this entire place completely insane?" There was too much urgency in the wall scribbles, too many little details hinting at what the hell went on there before you woke up, for me to just chuckle and dismiss the entire game's story. It's not a traditional telling, no, and that's why I liked it so much. The characters in Portal are fantastic, especially the unseen ones, the ones who composed sad poems to their companion cube, the ones who scribbled THEY'RE WATCHING YOU and THE CAKE IS A LIE in ever increasing urgency, the one who scribbled hasty directions to get to GLaDoS (who was another fantastic character, in my opinion).

It helped that I knew exactly nothing beyond "there are portal-based puzzles" and "there is a song in the end credits" and "everyone who played it seemed to really love it," I think. It made the story unfold in a much more satisfying way for me.

I never played Crysis or Halo or any of those, so I can't really compare directly for you, though!

[LK]

For the record, Kojima is absolute shit when it comes to story.

He has his strengths and weaknesses. He knows how to use a game to manipulate his audience. The conclusion of MGS4 was a triumph and extremely satisfying to me, right down to *using the credits* to mess with the player. The games he has been the head of are expertly crafted.

[UnSub]

When was the last time YOU killed a hooker in a movie. 

I've killed a hooker during a movie. Does that count?

Portal worked very well because 1) it was short and focused and 2) it was a fantastic play on traditional video game roles, i.e. the player is told to do something, so they do it because that is what the game wants them to do.

I don't quite get the same level of narrative development from HL2, but just accept it is one group of magic aliens versus another with you as some kind of pawn who is used to shoot stuff.

[Hawkbit]

I played Portal in one four/five hour sitting.  I only knew that it was about solving puzzles, so when it became something else entirely, I was sucked in so deeply I didn't come out until I beat the game.  It goes down in my gaming history as some of the best $20 I've spent. 

[Velorath]

For the record, Kojima is absolute shit when it comes to story.

He has his strengths and weaknesses. He knows how to use a game to manipulate his audience. The conclusion of MGS4 was a triumph and extremely satisfying to me, right down to *using the credits* to mess with the player. The games he has been the head of are expertly crafted.

When I first read this topic, one of the first things that came to my mind was that to me Kojima has always been to me one of the examples of the way to do story in games completely the wrong way.  In fact it was something I ranted about at length in the MGS4 thread a couple years back, so I won't rehash all that here, but a lot of it is fairly relevant to this topic.  Suffice it to say that the MGS series is the epitome of story getting in the way of gameplay.

[Raguel]

I suppose I'm less interested in story than I am with narrative in the sense that I find games like Civ and Seven Kingdoms far more compelling than most rpgs. I've had 2 bioware chars make babies with npcs, but that was less interesting than having my king assasinated in Seven Kingdoms. What I'd love to see in an rpg is the random nature of Civ (well, really FfH): alliances made and broken, betrayals, espionage, such that there's a potential of the game playing out differently each time. It'll never happen in my lifetime, but a guy can dream.

[Azuredream]

The movies have helped prolong its shelf-life.  It'll be gone soon.  Most of the mania seems to be gone already.

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation. It's not going to be forgotten.

[Sjofn]

The movies have helped prolong its shelf-life.  It'll be gone soon.  Most of the mania seems to be gone already.

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation. It's not going to be forgotten.

a) You just made me feel ancient.
b) I am not really surprised it's your generation's Star Wars. They have some similarities that I think made that pretty likely to happen - it has the same right place/right time/right story elements perfect storm, imo. :P

[Quinton]

I too am not prepared to deal with people born in the 90s.

As far as Portal and Ico (to stay at least somewhat on topic) -- one of the things I love about a good book is feeling immersed in the story and I think these are examples of games that pull that off well.   Their worlds are self-consistent and well presented.  It's not just about plot, but about character and setting and feeling.   They both do a decent job of setting/world -- Portal obscures its loading screens with elevators -- Ico just does one seamless level start to finish, which I absolutely loved -- the castle was as much a character as a place and didn't feel like "levels" or "rooms" -- you saw something off in the distance and 45 minutes later there you were and you could look back and see where you came from.

[Margalis]

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation.

By that you mean awful dreck for stunted manchildren?  

[Samwise]

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation. It's not going to be forgotten.

a) You just made me feel ancient.

Ditto.   

[ghost]

The movies have helped prolong its shelf-life.  It'll be gone soon.  Most of the mania seems to be gone already.

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation. It's not going to be forgotten.

a) You just made me feel ancient.
b) I am not really surprised it's your generation's Star Wars. They have some similarities that I think made that pretty likely to happen - it has the same right place/right time/right story elements perfect storm, imo. :P

But it doesn't have The Force.  You just can't make a good cult classic without The Force. 

[Azuredream]

By that you mean awful dreck for stunted manchildren?  

You'd be surprised who you can strike up a conversation about Harry Potter with. Less so now, but before the 7th book came out, talking to people about what they thought was going to happen.

[Quinton]

I was disappointed by Harry Potter --  The first book was a fun read, but I kept hoping that it'd become more coherent and end up being more than it was.  I found the last book and ending to be highly disappointing.  I feel like JKR's sudden leap into fame and fortune failed to provide her with an opportunity to improve her craft.

But, I suppose I am an old fart these days, having grown up on the original Star Wars and all ^^

[UnSub]

Late to this, but I grew up with Harry Potter (I'm 20) and it's pretty much the Star Wars of the new generation.

I can't wait for the prequels. 

[Azazel]

Come on man.  It's 1984 and we're at Chuck E Cheese.  To your left is a full day's worth of quarters and Donkey Kong.  To your right is a broke ass Apple II and Ultima 3.  If you choose left, you can play with your friends all day, talk shit, and go for high scores.  To your right is Ultima 3.  It's not a hard call.  If you choose Ultima, the kids playing Donkey Kong are going to throw shitty pizza crust at you.

Popular is not good.

Those kids that would rather waste money on Donkey Kong?  Yeah, they'll be spending it on hookers and blow in a few years.  They can stick it.

Nor does popular mean bad.

At the time, I would have preferred to play DK with my friends, though I don't see much point in throwing pizza crust at anyone. I don't believe I've spent, oh, anything on hookers or blow in my life, so that's a pretty needlessly stupid example anyway.
Of course, later on if I had some time to myself at home, I'd have given Ultima 3 a spin, but that's neither here nor there.

Oh, and Harry Potter, (which is a series of childrens' books) was exceedingly popular over 10 years ago. Long before any films came along. I'm pretty much completely disinterested in HP, but hating on it seems a bit pointless and out of whack. Unless everything popular is automagically bad? Apparently?

Popular doesn't mean "good" (which is down to personal aesthetics anyway), nor does it mean "bad". It means "popular".


As for the story and half-life/portal discussion, some would argue story, others argue setting. Story can be told through setting in some ways, but it's almost like getting into a distinction between "story" and "narrative".

Narrative is like a drug. Start a story, raise a few questions, and even if things seem dull or confusing now your audience will stick around just to see how it ends.
we keep playing a mediocre FPS in order to see to the next cutscene,
And if the ending is worth it, if the surprises are genuine, a lot of people will forget how crappy and generic the gameplay was.

I only just extracted myself from this exact situation a week or so ago. Very good points (including the ones I trimmed from the quote).

If video game developers are storytellers, then they are that friend that won't hang up the damned phone and instead wastes 2 hours telling you stupid trivial bullshit.

Also true, in general. One reason why fairly generic and trite stories get held up as "great game stories". CoD4 SP is actually a decent example. It got all kinds of accolades, but it's not an especially good story (it's a decent story, for a game). It's not even an especially good game. What it actually is - is an interactive experience. And it's very well done at that.

At this point, I play a game because I want to play a game and I'll pick up a book or put in a movie if I want a story.

This.

If I get lucky and the game has what passes for a good story or compelling or interesting characters that's a very welcome bonus, but it's not my reason to play.

[Margalis]

Ultima and Donkey Kong are both awesome.

Still, was "story" really what made Ultima? I would say no.

[Kail]

(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.

[Lantyssa]

Oh, and Harry Potter, (which is a series of childrens' books) was exceedingly popular over 10 years ago. Long before any films came along. I'm pretty much completely disinterested in HP, but hating on it seems a bit pointless and out of whack. Unless everything popular is automagically bad? Apparently?

If the masses act like idiots over it, then this is likely true...  Though that wasn't my point.

A good work can be popular.  A popular work is not necessarily strong in story elements.  Musashi is confusing the two and simply name dropping popular games without any actual technical evaluation of their merits.  He's saying if you don't like the "in" game, you're a nerd and deserve to be ostracized.  That's his argument for what makes a good story.

So as you say, "nor does popular mean bad".  Popular has nothing to do with it at all.

[Malakili]

(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.

Because the headline is just part of it.  It tells us civilization was still together enough to print newspapers until the end of the 7 hour war at least, it tells us that eli or dr. kliener though they were worth keeping around, the scribbling on one of the pages suggests that perhaps they were trying to make sense of stuff that didn't line up with what they themselves knew from Black Mesa.  We don't now a ton about what happened to the press post-combine take over, but we know that there was at least an attempt to keep it going.    These little artifacts tell you tons about the state of the world, or at least possible state of the world.