Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Retropunch]

I think both ways can work equally well. There's no 'magic story formula' to making games more immersive. DF/open world RPGS work because you create your own story out of lots of little events. However, I've never, ever been engrossed in a game story as much as in Mass Effect 2, which was quite literally a film with a bit of shooting and exploring in it.

It's all about the actual story and game itself, and I really dislike this recent wave of game journalism which tries to explain everything and put it into methods and boxes and try to make it sound as though it's ultra-sophisticated. It's like people that are 'professional film critics'  - how can you possibly be a professional in a purely subjective field? - there's no right or wrong, it's what's most entertaining for the story you're trying to tell.
 

[Farce]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evKkHi_qmo


On a more serious note, it's a bit difficult to make a sweeping generalization across an entire medium about what's good, but since vidya is roundabout the only interactive medium, I'd say that in that context, a good video game story is one that makes use of that interactive nature.

That said, Xenogears and FF6, while being p. linear, are definitely great stories.  I can't say whether or not they count as 'using the interactive medium', either - the obvious thought is 'nah, story's linear, so it doesn't', but playing the game attaches you to the characters, as you go through shit that you otherwise might not get in a book or whatever without big happenings and such - you know, Citan shows off his ballin' kung fu and you're like, 'fuck yeah, what a badass, I like him,', or Edward in FF5 is all 'agad I am terrified' and you're all 'fuckin' spoony bard'.  Then there's stuff like... say, Sabin's fight with that dude, where he shows off his Blitz techniques, and you're living through a (storyline) crucial moment and all that.

[Neonivek]

It is kind of interesting when movie critics, who don't play games, try to critique videogames.

Since they are always very grounded in movies and often try to judge them the way they would do a movie.

So they often will harp on the minimalist elements of simple games

The reason people harp on games for being "like movies" is because games are not movies and do not survive on the same merits and often games will interfere with the gameplay for story... or people see great cinematic pieces and are annoyed that it isn't introduced through gameplay. Which to admit is quite valid, it is annoying when the best parts of the game are ones you aren't even involved with.

But it all depends on what the game is going for. Visual Novels are often BARELY (or sometimes not even) games having little-no input from the player and often their choices only amounts to the order things take place in (or even... if they see them at all), yet those aren't "bad" for that reason because that is what you are playing it for. While an action game where you do not take part in the action or that has long cinematics after short levels can really grate on your patience.

----

As well games don't have to be immersive, they can be engrossing instead. A lot of games are about being able to step back from the gameplay to strategize.

[Euld]

Personally?  Any kind of story of any genre should be capable of being used for a game.  I believe it's less of an issue of a story genre being suitable for a game, and more of an issue of the story and the game simply being good.  Or an issue of the story and game synergizing with each other.

Case in point: Dear Esther.  That game was terrible because the story was terrible and the first five minutes set you up with disappointment.  The story was boring and made no sense (my favorite quote, "I've been here for so long, I've wondered if I gave birth to the island."  Huge wtf moment, five minutes in).  In the first five minutes, you're directed into a house with practically nothing inside it.  No interactables, just very boring environment set pieces.

[Neonivek]

Honestly Dear Esther...

It was basically an interesting novella read within a non-interactive environment. Even if you were to say the story of Dear Esther was good, you couldn't say the gameplay was.

Not that the idea of the game was meritless... but the story wasn't enriched by the walking, the story wasn't expanded by what you see...

It was basically pointless and people only bought it for the good novella.

[Krevsin]

But it all depends on what the game is going for. Visual Novels are often BARELY (or sometimes not even) games having little-no input from the player and often their choices only amounts to the order things take place in (or even... if they see them at all), yet those aren't "bad" for that reason because that is what you are playing it for.

I personally like to view visual novels and games as two different mediums (despite some overlap) for exactly that reason.

[Retropunch]

I picked up Dear Esther as soon as it came out (I literally stumbled across it the day it came out without having read about it before). I really enjoyed it because I really had no idea what to expect. I thought at any minute something could jump out and me and turn it into a proper horror game. It didn't really disappoint me when that wasn't the case - it was just a really atmospheric experience rather than anything else.

However, I get why people didn't like it, and I wouldn't have either if I had formed an opinion before hand. I literally only enjoyed it because I didn't know what to expect (which it was purposely relying on) this is a kinda strange thing to hinge your game on in this day and age of endless reviews and lets plays, but still, it had it's merits.

[Gatleos]

However, I get why people didn't like it, and I wouldn't have either if I had formed an opinion before hand. I literally only enjoyed it because I didn't know what to expect (which it was purposely relying on) this is a kinda strange thing to hinge your game on in this day and age of endless reviews and lets plays, but still, it had it's merits.

I've never played that game and know almost nothing about it, so I won't make any judgments about it. But the fact that people disliked it largely because it wasn't what they were expecting is exactly the point I was making before. It's hard to make anything new, because people don't judge it on its own merits. They just ask why it isn't like something else and confuse their disappointment for valid criticism.

What is it with all of these sweeping authoritative judgments on what a game can and should be? Who are you to say that a game with a linear plot and lots of cutscenes should not exist? Do you think it's a bad game? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But to forbid an entire form of storytelling from existence because it doesn't fit your narrow idea of what a video game is... that's absurd.

Some people call a game a "movie", meaning it as a derogatory statement. Really? Think for a moment of all the possibilities you just thoughtlessly stamped out. So what if a work of art is 90% movie and 10% game... or 80% comic book, 15% flash animation and 5% interactive... or 70% book and 30% animation... don't you want to see that? Are your opinions so hopelessly dependent on your preconceived idea of what something should be that you can't judge it on its own merits?

I don't think it's that outrageous.

People don't watch a lot of silent movies anymore. There are some niche ones designed for the silent format, but I think it's pretty obvious that movies with talking are generally a better format for effectively conveying stories. I don't think admitting that is an insult to people who enjoyed (or enjoy) silent films.

I think games are similar. They have some formats that work better than others, and admitting that isn't insulting anyone.

Well it's certainly not going to change anything, it's not detrimental that some people think that way... unless they're designers I suppose. I just dislike the mindset. Maybe I came off a little too strong on that one.

On another note, and going back to that sequelitis episode, I want to tell Ego how wrong he is but it's just a matter of taste. He doesn't like reading or watching a story in a game, he wants every game to be Mega Man X where it boils down to "get stronger and kill stuff". He likes it because the goals of the PC line up perfectly with the goals and expectations of the player; no roleplay needed. He asks who cares about the Gorons. I DO, because I read that exposition you skipped over and am capable of simultaneously treating the experience as a mental challenge and a story to be read.

But he's not wrong. He's very clear that it's all his opinion and then asks to hear that of others... so of course youtube responded exactly like the guy at the beginning of the video, without irony. *sigh*

[PrimusRibbus]

Speaking from a purely "game first, story second" standpoint:

I agree with what Egoraptor said about Ocarina of Time; games should feel like you are the hero, not playing the hero. What KOTOR 2 (and to a lesser extent KOTOR 1) get so right is that you get to apply yourself to it, and thus you are the hero, not playing the hero.

For example, Half-Life and HL2 are great emotional experiences because Gordon is an avatar of the player (silent protagonist) rather than a character in the game's story. You set the tone of the game, not Gordon. You can get immersed in the world because "Gordon" is just an empty spot for you to step in.

Heavy-story games need a player avatar, IMO. In games with heavy story that don't have a player avatar (FF6 for example), the story is lessened because there's no room for the player to be involved; you're just moving the pieces to the end.

I've been spoiled by great P&P DMs, so I see it in the exact opposite way. Story-heavy player-avatar games will always fall short because the computer is not a suitable replacement for the DM; you might have a backstory and personality in your head for your avatar, but you have to have some serious cognitive dissonance to reconcile that with what you're actually being presented in the game.
Story-light games that focus on atmosphere and open-worlds do well with a player avatar: Games like Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress where your storyline is the player's own narrative of the events unfolding in front of them.

For a story-heavy video game, go linear with defined characters or go home.

Half-Life and HL2's stories were mediocre at best because Gordon was faceless, silent, generally undefined. The entire storyline boils down to "but thou must, faceless man" and I always felt like I was at a themepark where costumed characters were pretending I was a princess because I had a Burger King crown on. It was all the pitfalls of linear storytelling, without the benefit of a well-made protagonist that had any sort of emotional relation to the characters around them.

FF6 was a far superior storytelling experience for me because careful thought was put into the world, the protagonists, and how it all went together. Defined characters resulted in a logical, cohesive storyline where you actually felt for the characters. I had far more emotions for Cyan during the Doma genocide that I ever did for any of the characters in the Half-Life series; primarily because Cyan acted appropriately during the scene, as opposed to how the Half-Life characters talked to a brick wall.

[rabidgam3r]

disclaimer i am not the good at write i just like reading stories and playing games with stories this is my experience as a consumer im an idiot bluhbluhbluh


My favorite type of video game story is.. Strange. The special kind of story where your protagonist is built and set and written in such a way that everything you do in the game itself, the -game-, side missions and beating people up on the street feels in-character, or at least justified.
Take GTA V. The three characters all have generally a good "reason" for GTA-style chaos. Michael is basically a psychopath in retirement, and Trevor is constantly high on meth and is generally evil as all hell and franklins a black guy. Even though you're attaching stick bombs to a bus and driving it off a cliff you don't stop and think "wow this is just so stupid". Suspension of disbelief, basically.


honorable mention for GTA V's understanding of show, don't tell whenever you switch to a character you see them in a randomly-picked situation that's either funny, character-defining or often both such as michael arguing with his family or trevor waking up in a dress on top of a mountain with a bottle of hooch in one hand and a knife in the other

[Darkmere]

However, I get why people didn't like it, and I wouldn't have either if I had formed an opinion before hand. I literally only enjoyed it because I didn't know what to expect (which it was purposely relying on) this is a kinda strange thing to hinge your game on in this day and age of endless reviews and lets plays, but still, it had it's merits.

I've never played that game and know almost nothing about it, so I won't make any judgments about it. But the fact that people disliked it largely because it wasn't what they were expecting is exactly the point I was making before. It's hard to make anything new, because people don't judge it on its own merits. They just ask why it isn't like something else and confuse their disappointment for valid criticism.

How can I quote this louder? There's been a constant near-pervasive trend of this for as long as I've been playing games... allll the way back to Doom being "Wolfenstein 3D but more 3D and with demons." Many, many people just can't handle the fact that <game designer> didn't build <Game, Game 2: return of game, Game 3: game harder> directly according to the nebulous specifications that they panned it for but couldn't even articulate. Don't even get me started on "expansion packs that still feel like you're playing the base game!" I--- *gets hit on the head and dragged off stage*

OT: A good game story is... basically like ANY story... you're going to like or dislike it based on the library of personal experience you can draw from and what you're in the mood for at any particular time. Ask everyone on the planet and you'll get 7 billion different answers. For me... I couldn't even put a finger on a formula or three that I like.

Sorry for interjecting nonsense, I'll bow out and go back to the silent observer thing.

[nenjin]

On the other hand, there are lots of times developers borrow every genre buzzword they can in an effort to conjure in your mind the game they believe they will make.

And then they make something that doesn't even live up to half of what thought it would be. At times there I hear some fall back on "judge the game you got, not the game you wanted" as a defense for why it's shallow, half-finished or w/e. Sorry, that's only tangentially-related to the thread topic, but I felt like some counterbalance to "the player's opinion is misplaced" was required.

[Darkmere]

Well, obviously there's a difference between "unfinished crap" and "players just don't understand the game's brilliance." If a game doesn't match it's own marketing or is demonstrably bug-riddled and non-functional... it's objectively bad. Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is objectively bad...

Alright, I can tie this in with the thread topic to brings us back on the rails. (This discussion happened on this and I don't remember who said what but the details are expunged for irrelevance.) There was a game which shall remain nameless that had one or more sequels. There was a criticism of the sequel that it "changed the story" by altering key facts from the original game.

The counter-argument was brought up with plot details in the first game that directly supported the plot that arose in the sequel. Thus, the person who panned the sequel for "changing the story" had an invalid criticism based on something they had failed to notice and mentally filled in the blanks for later. In this case, I'd think the argument that some plot details weren't as prominent as they could have been is a valid criticism. Panning it for changing a story when they didn't actually change the story... is not.

For a more concrete example directly related to plot, Bioshock and Bioshock 2. I'm assuming by now if you're gonna play them you will have done so, so unmarked spoilers ahoy!

So in the first game Jack does the whole would you kindly and Andrew Ryan's narcissistic individualism destroys the city for the most part. It's a story about people who are a part of a system breaking out of and changing that system, both potentially for the better (Jack if you aren't a dick) or much worse (Andrew "Everyone can choose their own path as long as it's the one I made for them" Ryan).

In 2, Delta vs Sophia Lamb's cuckoo collective is a mirror's image of 1. You're a part of a system who can actively work towards change by setting examples and working within that system. Sophia Lamb essentially wants to annihilate individuality and force-feed people each others' memories to engineer some human oversoul or something. The direct opposite of Ryan's rampant individualism. And yet she's just as immoral and self-righteous as Ryan was.

So taken together they bookend the same basic idea that extremism in any form should be critically examined, don't simply accept what others tell you, all that good stuff. I think that while the second one was slightly weaker, it was only because the world wasn't the brand new thing it used to be in the first game. Taken together, both games are one of the most well-done literary/philosophical allegories I've seen explored at length in a video game narrative. And yet, I saw reviews that flat-out said "I quit playing Bioshock 2 ten minutes in because it felt too much like I was playing a Bioshock game." Then my head exploded into confetti.

[Neonivek]

I certainly liked the first bioshock's story more then most people, though I felt like Bioshock 2 was a forced retred trying to recapture what made the first game 2 without giving enough of its own spin. "Ohh how about we let the player be a Big Daddy... except that would be lame so how about we make the player a super DUPER big daddy". It also is overall more shallow mostly because it is more... obvious so to speak.

It isn't weaker because it "isn't new" but rather because it didn't do enough with its own setting and many a time directly copied the previous game. There are a lot of games that take place mostly within the same world and yet they find ways to keep the sequels fresh.

Or rather... Bioshock 2 doesn't add anything, it is a sequel for sequel sake without the gameplay additions that could justify this. Add in that is looks exactly the same at many points... yeah. It needed more.

So yeah I can totally see why someone would complain that 10 minutes in it feels EXACTLY like the first bioshock.

Then again I liked Bioshock 1 and 2... but I REALLY don't like Bioshock Infinite, like passionately and find it to be quite trite. But that is subjectivity for you

But then again that is also a fair criticism of sequels too. You can always say that you should treat games on their own merits but I don't think like that. I believe that you can take something as an individual and as part of a collection, and that neither approach is bad. Since really why make sequels if people are expected to just entirely discount it for being a sequel? (Plus sometimes Sequel makes a game better then it would as an individual product).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On the topic of Bioshock infinite... Want to know the second I hated the story? When I saw that I was the anti-Christ due to a symbol on my hand and I was like "ohh no, I should probably hide that somehow" and the character proceeds to be a non-stop moron. The game opens up and presents this wide world but really it is just one direction. Worse yet is I IMMEDIATELY knew I wasn't the main character because I have absolutely no stakes. I am just some guy thrown into a power struggle with no real voice or ability to affect things unless the plot decides so... and the plot will force you to do the most uncharacteristic things ever! like let people drown you!

It is just the sign of a bad story when the story refuses to allow characters to act like themselves and instead just forces them from location to location.

Gameplay wise I also prefer Bioshock 1 as well, mostly because I felt it was tighter then Bioshock infinite where they often present you with obstacles you cannot circumvent (so that you seem cooler later), and worse yet they are booby-trapped if you try to use your brain, while in the original bioshock you could pretty much do it immediately.