Print

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

[Gatleos]

Before I start on my long-winded tirade, I'd like to direct you to this article. I will be contradicting it, but it's not a bad article. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment presented here. The article itself is a little meandering, starting by talking about the creative process for games and then switching gears partway through to talk about video game stories, which is a little weird. Anyway this isn't about the article itself but about the mindset presented in the second half of it.

Most people are familiar with the old writing adage, "show, don't tell". And if you're at all interested in game design, you might have already run into its equivalent in the phrase "do, don't show". If you haven't, this article is an interesting explanation of the idea. In short, "show, don't tell" is being used here in the context of film rather than as a general writing tip. You show things happening onscreen rather than describing them, to take advantage of the film medium. When you "do, don't show", you're effectively making full use of the interactivity of the video game medium by telling a story through those interactive elements.

Now, that second article might appear to be much more relevant to what I'm describing here. The reason I brought up the other first is because it's a much more brazen example of a certain type of mindset in the modern gaming community.

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?

-=DEEPEST BREATH OF ALL=-

So what do you guys like in a game's story? Do you think one method of story telling is best for games? What is your ideal?

[Folly]

For me, a game is all about engaging interactive mechanics. I can certainly appreciate a good story in a video game. I also appreciate pleasant music in a game, and pretty graphics. There are many elements which can effectively supplement the gaming experience. But without that core of engaging interaction, the rest just falls flat.

IMO, if developers aren't going to bother to make game mechanics that are dynamic, creative, and fun, but instead try to make their game all about story or any other element, then they should be making a movie or writing a book or composing a musical album instead. The content they are focusing on would be easier to digest in another format, and the audiences' expectations would be more effectively met.

[alexandertnt]

I prefer if a story is more... "open to interpretation".

I'm not quite sure how to explain it, but I would prefer to form part of the story myself, or to have enough "slack" to allow me to interpret the story in the way I think is more interesting. I prefer if the story is more of a guide for my imagination, a framework to build my own ideas from.

IMO, if developers aren't going to bother to make game mechanics that are dynamic, creative, and fun, but instead try to make their game all about story or any other element, then they should be making a movie or writing a book or composing a musical album instead. The content they are focusing on would be easier to digest in another format, and the audiences' expectations would be more effectively met.

I agree with this. Some games I have played would be much more fun as a book or a visual novel. Usually they are the more linear games (in the sence of exposition -> gameplay -> exposition -> gameplay) where gameplay isn't all that interesting and/or relevant to the story (e.g. "Go and get the magical thing to save the king!" *hundreds of dead monsters there that don't really seem like they should be there*).

[thegoatgod_pan]

I think stories are extrinsic to video games, they can be nice, but ultimately they will not make a bad game good, nor ruin a good game.

 For instance, Dwarf fortress has no story, or rather no plot, the player creates narrative in the course of playing, but it is not a part of the game.

or what story does tetris have? Smash bros? Civilization?

Narrative is a borrowing from literature and has no inherent link to the medium of gaming, but it can be a dynamic supplement.

I like rpg uses of narrative because it creates interest in replaying the game and seeing a different aspect of the game or a different set of consequences. For me,  Fallout New Vegas is a perfect use of narrative in gaming, my first playthrough I honestly felt like I was subverting the game, when I had actually stumbled onto the Wild Card playthrough.

Someone wrote the possibility of murdering Benny and then checking out the details of his conspiracy, instead of reporting back to House, and that someone wasn't interested in a literary narrative,but gaming narrative: the what-if-I-fuck-around logic of gaming which is quite foreign to literature.

[Neonivek]

Books have a "Show, don't tell" rule but it works quite a bit differently. For example you can have characters state their emotions instead of showing it, you can have important events narrated in passing but not expanded upon.

Think about many of the instances where a television show... tells, but doesn't show. In most of those instances it wouldn't have flew in a book either, because most of the time it is just the characters saying someone has a trait to give the impression, without needing to really follow it up.

The exception to the "Show, don't tell" rule in my opinion is when showing is telling.

---

Anyhow the person writing the article is pretty much entirely in the mindset of the backlash against games "trying to be movies". Specifically ones that are mostly entirely movies and focus on movie set pieces that you cannot interact with.

Essentially making the gameplay like some sort of odd rail shooter except not.

Though Asura's Wrath was mostly that and it was... ok. (it wasn't for me).

To a certain extent I agree, it isn't hard to find a game that does it entirely wrong... For example "Other M" is the perfect example of telling, but not showing... and showing, but not doing. You are entirely removed from the events from the game and never are any of the game's premises put to the test in a way the player can really have a grasp on.

We also have games that abuse quick time events like crazy to the point where really we are just inputting popping up keys most of the time. Yet these are rarely blended into the gameplay.

As well certain things that were ok in the 90s are starting to be more and more silly. For example the EXTREME story and gameplay segregations is starting to get odd looks. Especially when they outright contradict each other, even with liberties taken. Why? because games are actually starting to do this better.

I think stories are extrinsic to video games, they can be nice, but ultimately they will not make a bad game good, nor ruin a good game.

 For instance, Dwarf fortress has no story, or rather no plot, the player creates narrative in the course of playing, but it is not a part of the game.

or what story does tetris have? Smash bros? Civilization?

Narrative is a borrowing from literature and has no inherent link to the medium of gaming, but it can be a dynamic supplement.

I like rpg uses of narrative because it creates interest in replaying the game and seeing a different aspect of the game or a different set of consequences. For me,  Fallout New Vegas is a perfect use of narrative in gaming, my first playthrough I honestly felt like I was subverting the game, when I had actually stumbled onto the Wild Card playthrough.

Someone wrote the possibility of murdering Benny and then checking out the details of his conspiracy, instead of reporting back to House, and that someone wasn't interested in a literary narrative,but gaming narrative: the what-if-I-fuck-around logic of gaming which is quite foreign to literature.

Yes but on the same degree "Story" is extrinsic to movies and television shows. Many documentaries do not have a story, they are simply stating facts. A exercise tape has no story.

When something introduces story elements, they become intrinsic to the product.

---

Anyhow this all doesn't matter...

What is the best story for a videogame? Usually one that compliments the gameplay. Though really there is no "best" just different styles.

You can have the Visual Novels bordering on non-game (or even outright not being a game, with the ones that have no interaction), or you can have games with absolutely no story.

Mind you best often picks up depending on what game you are creating. The issue with a lot of point and clicks is that they often have "puzzles for puzzles sake" instead of trying to integrate them into the story, setting, or characters, but that is because they are trying to set up a story and they are not blending the gameplay elements.

The issue is when the story interferes with the gameplay or the gameplay interferes with the story. A game shouldn't fight itself. The story, if there is one, should feel natural within the game. They need to compliment each other.

So I guess that is it... the best videogame story is one that compliments the game.

[itisnotlogical]

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.

[Vector]

.

[Neonivek]

Plus no Blank Slate main hero can ever have the amount of character depth that "Playing the hero" can.

Final Fantasy 6 sure, you are just moving the pieces to the end... but let me ask you: What is Gordon Freemen's favorite food? What is his opinion on the alien invasion? What is his opinion on his own job? Does he like his co-workers? Does he like sports?

I know a lot of people dislike the uninvolved aspect of games like Final Fantasy 6... but to me it is just another way to tell the story.

As well it helps that the Combat in FF6 was tight! with each hero you get having a unique approach to combat.

That and I personally can get into the mindset of the character I am playing. I am on their journey right along with them even if I am not there personally.

It is why I am much less emotionally invested in Half-life 1 and 2... because Gordon isn't a character. I love the game, but not for a rich character driven experience.

[Gatleos]

Egoraptor

It amazes me sometimes how insightful that guy is when he's analyzing and not grumping. I've rolled my eyes at him in the past for being the kind of player who just screams LALALALALA and mashes the A button to skip all cutscenes so they can go back to killing things, but he brings up a lot of good points here.

More on point, and to be honest, I really don't understand people who think there's no place for story in games. It's such a great platform for telling a story, why not make use of it? It's not that I mind games having zero story, some of them are my favorites. But the context and meaning that a narrative can attach to gameplay is just as important as the sound effects, or visuals, or the tactile (real or imagined) feedback exerted on the player; a game can be a bunch of silent squares in a void and still play the same way, but those things enrich it and give it life. Narrative is the same way.

Yeah, a game like MGS4 might go a little too far with its non-interactive segments to be called a video game through and through (though, like I said in the OP I consider this hybrid approach an equally valid storytelling method), but most games don't get even close to going that far. When people call for "more gameplay, less cutscenes" but also want a full and interesting story, it makes me think that they don't realize what they're asking for.

Alright, let's remove all the dialogue and cutscenes. What do you propose we replace it with? Half-Life's system? That's still a cutscene, you can just jump around during it. Same goes for games like Portal and Bioshock. No matter how unobtrusive the story is, you still have to shift your attention to it to retain that information.

A video game story is one of exploration, whether that's literal in the game world, or just the player exploring the mechanics and story elements. Stopping them at a certain point to say "hey, look at this, it's important" is not a bad thing at all, whether it's a brief zoom on a particular object in a room or a 5 minute long cutscene that demonstrates the qualities of a character or setting. Allowing the reader of a story to infer information from a story rather than spelling it out literally is good writing, and allowing a player to use the interface provided to gleam information about your story from the world (even if it's just shown to them) is good game design.

To a certain extent I agree, it isn't hard to find a game that does it entirely wrong... For example "Other M" is the perfect example of telling, but not showing... and showing, but not doing. You are entirely removed from the events from the game and never are any of the game's premises put to the test in a way the player can really have a grasp on.

Oh man don't get me started on that one again.

You just need to use it as an intentional effect. Don't limit your artistic palette--sometimes lack of player agency, or undesired agency, is the point.

Well said.

[Neonivek]

I will say that there are exceptions to the "Blank slate with no personality"

"The Void" for example even though you are ENTIRELY a non-entity who cannot speak... You do feel that while playing it you are defining your character's personality.

[Vector]

-

[Gatleos]

Really, "don't limit your artistic palette" pretty well describes my attitude toward the subject. Some people like minimalistic stories like Super Metroid, some like operatic epics like FF6. Some people like... whatever MGS is. I don't care. I just don't appreciate people dismissing entire types of story because they just want to kill things in their games and nothing else.

[Krevsin]

Personally, I like games that capitalize on interactivity, an advantage unique to games and visual novels as mediums, to tell a story which is directly influenced by the actions of the player. That isn't to say I hate linear storytelling, as I am of the mindset that a linear narrative told well trumps poorly told branching narratives. Another thing I quite enjoy and that is unique to games is emergent narratives in games like Dwarf Fortress. Those are quite neat.

In the end, for me it all really comes down to how well the gameplay and story come together. If a game works well with a story and the presentation thereof, it works well. It's not about always using the unique storytelling aspects of the medium, it's about what a game designer can do well.

Really, "don't limit your artistic palette" pretty well describes my attitude toward the subject. Some people like minimalistic stories like Super Metroid, some like operatic epics like FF6. Some people like... whatever MGS is. I don't care. I just don't appreciate people dismissing entire types of story because they just want to kill things in their games and nothing else.

Well told.

[Nighthawk]

A good story is anything that gets you engaged. If your experience with the tale has made you get excited, or scared, feel happy, or sad, then it's done something right. It doesn't need to be complicated. It just needs to remind you that you're human.

[penguinofhonor]

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.