Stories in Games Matter, Right?

1up has a piece looking at what exactly David Jaffe meant when he said he was 'no longer doing story'. They examine how this ties into the Lester Bangs discussion, and hear from some other designers on where they think story falls within the realm of game design. From the article: "Warren Spector: Games are all about the player experience -- about DOING things, not about watching things or hearing about things. And that means that a narrative game has to put the player experience first and the narrative second. However, left to their own devices, most players aren't very GOOD at crafting compelling experiences -- just as most readers aren't good writers, and most moviegoers aren't great directors. And that's where story comes in."

Comments

FP?

[dosius]

Depends on the game really. For 1:1 fighters and FPSes, and platformers, yeah. I like a story. But games like Tetris, nah.

-uso.

Re:FP?

[Alexandra Erenhart]

Hey, even Arkanoid had a story... why not Tetris?

Re:FP?

[Skevin]

Adding power-ups and maybe even a boss would be a good start.

Solomon

Re:FP?

[Eideewt]

Yep, it depends completely on the game. Any discussion about what games need that treats games as a homogenous group is doomed to benefit no one. All a game "needs" is to accomplish its goal, just like any work of art. Some games try to offer a fast-paced and exciting gameplay experience (like Wolfenstein 3d, which even cut features to accomplish that goal). Others try to offer a good story, like interactive fiction. It's stupid to say that Wolfenstein needs a better story, just like it's stupid to insist that a text adventure doesn't have enough action sequences. Games are such a wide genre that throwing them all into one heap is meaningless. It's like trying to talk about what music needs. A strong beat? Take a look at Indian classical music. A melody? What about rap music (I'm sure this will draw fire)? All a work of art "needs" is to be what the author wants.

Re:FP?

[dosius]

There was a shareware Tetris clone for DOS, that unfortunately shares its name with the online Tetris clone Netris. I call it Nyetris or Notris instead. It had the same pieces as Tetris, plus bombs (small and large), guns, compactors and inverters.

I wish there were an SDL version. xD

-uso.

It's not that important.

[mashuren]

Good gameplay can save a game with a terrible story. But a good story can't save a game with terrible gameplay.

Re:It's not that important.

[Gulthek]

But a good story can't save a game with terrible gameplay.

Counterexample: Interactive Fiction (Infocom) games. Of course I don't think their gameplay is "terrible", but it is certainly lackluster for most people when compared with graphical games.

Re:It's not that important.

[Sentry21]

I look at Fable as an example contrary to your assertion. Fable had good gameplay (the core was solid, anyway), but there was no reason for me to progress. I didn't care about my characters, I didn't care about the world, I didn't care about my sister or mother, or the town I grew up in. I played through the game in the hopes that there would be something redeeming at the end, and not just 'You killed the bad guy. The end.'

Fable was a disappointment in that a lot of the gameplay innovations that were promised were never delivered on, but it was such a bland game that there may as well not have been a story. It would have been just as compelling if the 'story' had just been presented as 'Go here and kill this guy', which is not far off from what they provided.

When I compare that with a game like Jade Empire, where I actually felt bad for doing bad things when I was playing evil, and felt good for doing good deeds. I read every letter of the scrolls I found, because I was truly interested in the world around me and in finding out the history of the world and who the people were that I was always hearing about. The gameplay in JE wasn't that fantastic - in fact, it was astonishingly repetetive - but I enjoyed the game immensely more than I did in Fable, because it was a compelling story that I wanted to unfold, and because I had an emotional investment in the characters and their situation.

You don't need a good story to have a good game (look at Mario or Tetris), but for certain genres, it is imperative that the developer give the player a reason to progress. If the gameplay makes up for the poor story, then fine, but I'd rather have a good story.

Re:It's not that important.

[digitrev]

Let me rephrase. I don't mind a story, and I have often enjoyed it (Skies of Arcadia, Tales of Symphonia, etc..) But when that story (and to a greater extent, graphics) gets in the way of developping decent gameplay, then I have a problem.

Re:It's not that important.

[Astarica]

This is one of the biggest perpetuated myths in gaming, that the elements of a game is somehow zero-sum. Exactly how does focusing on graphics take away from gameplay or the story? Do they pull the staff that would've wrote the story or designed the game system to draw polygons never mind that these 3 areas have basically no common skillset?

If a game has poor gameplay it is because whoever designed it didn't do his job right. It has nothing to do with whether the guys at the graphic department were doing their job or not.

Re:It's not that important.

[Ant P.]

From that comment I'm guessing you've never played any Final Fantasy games. Spreadsheets with a plot.

Re:It's not that important.

[digitrev]

What about budget? If they spend all their cash on the graphics, then gameplay is going to suffer.

Re:It's not that important.

[easychord]

A designer can choose to let a really game character animation play that ruins the gameplay just because it's pretty. A designer can move the camera to a point where the new bump mapped pixel shaded metal walls look absolutely amazing at the expense of playablility. Oh, and that new spangly game engine can only render one small room at a time? Never mind, just shrink the levels and put the game on rails.

Re:It's not that important.

[grumbel]

### Good gameplay can save a game with a terrible story. But a good story can't save a game with terrible gameplay.

Ever played Dreamfall? Actual gameplay in that game is really almost non existant, almost no puzzles, a fight system that is plain awefull and a sneaking system that isn't exactly much fun either by any means. Even for an adventure game its really very low in terms of gameplay. If it wouldn't be for the story and art there really would be exactly nothing worth to play Dreamfall. The story however is great and thanks to it and the awesome art direction that game still scored reasonably well (5/5 at Gamespy, 8.1 at gamespot, 7.5 ign, etc). A good story can certainly boost a game a lot and be the only reason to play a game in the first place.

That of course doesn't mean that gameplay is unimportant, a story like Dreamfall with some actually good gameplay inbetween would be great, better then the game it is now. However good gameplay really isn't a requirement, the only important part is that gameplay doesn't get in the way of the story, if you die a hundred times and just get stuck you won't ever find out how the story continues, so it that is of course a thing to avoid, but lack of challange or actual play really can be quite secondary to some games.

Re:It's not that important.

[lgw]

The lack of good gameplay (relative to text adventures) is precisely what turned me off to modern interactive fiction. I liked the Infocom games, on the whole, but while the story is much better in modern IF, the player doesn't contribute much. You mostly walk from one page of the book to the next.

It's nice when a game has a good *backstory*, but the story inb a game is only interesting if you the player help create it (or at least the game does a good job of giving that illusion).

Re:It's not that important.

[pjgeer]

Ah, but in both Fable and Jade Empire you had to hold the thumbstick in one direction for long periods of time to get anywhere. That is a gameplay issue and it is boring. With the scrolls Jade Empire made the walk in a bit more interesting for some, but the walk out was sheer boredom. There was no possibility of finding random items of possible interest strewn in your path, just a long walk back the way you came, interrupted by the occasional resetting of lower level monsters you had already beaten. In tabletop RPGs this is smoothed over by a slick GM who skips over uneventful sequences. Those CRPGs games should have had an interactive map to pull you to checkpoints where you've already been- call up the map, select the checkpoint with the D-pad or stick, then push a button and go there.

"Gameplay innovations" is a scary phrase that (at least for me) conjures up one-off navigation methods and confusing action sequences. What I've just described is hardly an innovation but it would have made the game so much better (except for masochists). Both games already implemented the ability to jump, just increase the number referring to the distance jumped, run the jump, then hide the map screen to show you in the new location.

I felt bad about doing "evil" in Jade Empire too, and as a result I missed half the story. I got to see it in Fable, where evil was kinda campy. I feel that the problem is that we've been putting up with subpar gameplay for so long in RPGs that we are conditioned to expect it, and as a result the industry continues to produce to our expectations. In view of that, how can we possibly blame the industry?

Re:It's not that important.

[identity0]

Gameplay isn't everything. There are these things called 'movies', which are basically no gameplay and all story - or sometimes, all special effects and no story. They still manage to entertain.

Hell, there are more to games than just gameplay ans story, too. I've played games just because I liked the music and art, like Jet Grind Radio, or character designs like Zelda Wind Waker and Pikmin.

JGR and Rez were interesting because they had a 'feel' or 'aura' that I liked, and I mostly played them to immerse myself in the world created by them. They both had passable gameplay and some story, but the main thing about them was that they made you feel like you were a very cool, skilled character in a interesting world. That kind of immersion is what draws me to a lot of games.

Why do I play Rogue Squadron instead of Random_Space_Shooter? Because I get to fly an X-wing. Why Pikmin instead of some other puzzler? Because the characters are so darn cute, and I want to imagine these guys running around in my garden (yes, I am a guy). Playing Pikmin actually reminded me of playing with Legos as a kid, or keeping fish as pets. That kind of thing is the appeal that drives games like Nintendogs, Sims, or Animal Crossing.

I can deal with crappy play mechanics as long as it doesn't prevent me from progressing. But imagine if there were a game with good gameplay, but terrible story. Take the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game. Now imagine Disney or McDonalds releasing a clone, where you do all the same things, but all the actions have been changed to 'kid-friendly' versions. Instead of carjacking, you ask people nicely, and they give you their car. Instead of getting a blowjob, you get a nice shoulder rub that increases your health. Your missions include delivering burgers, squirting people with a water gun, and other wholesome activities. All the game actions would be the same, it would just be presented in a completely different manner. It would suck.

Also, the old adventure games typically had gameplay that was not so good, but relied on story, humor and drama to keep things going. Unfortuantely, the majority of the gaming public seems to agree with the "story sucks" sentiment, so we are not seeing those anymore. I think 'Trace Memory' for the DS is the only old-fashioned adventure out there right now. Man, I wish they would release a new Roger Wilco or Kyrandia game.

Re:It's not that important.

[blahplusplus]

" If the gameplay makes up for the poor story, then fine, but I'd rather have a good story."

I have to take issue with this, GAMEPLAY is the primary reason most people play games. In fact, the march towards watching games rather then playing them, being in control and interacting is rather disheartening. Halo's story was far from good or original, it was the gameplay, experience and immersion in that world that did it for most people. The only things I remember from halo are master cheif, some aliens who's names I can't remember, and the flood. I remember halo for the fun and experiences I had, I simply do not remember it for the story. Some games are about story (Planescape torment) but most games are about gameplay. Fire emblem wouldn't be the same game without both its gameplay an story, I still think gameplay takes precedence, if a game is no fun when you rip out the story you have a serious problem.

I may be "hardcore" for saying this, but a game like mario, or tetris is pure gameplay, it is the reason gaming took off in the firstplace. Without any kind of control and things for your character to do and interact with, with the avatars abilities, there's little reason to play most games. Take the guns out of Any first person shooter and just walk around, would the gameplay still be the same? I doubt it.

Re:It's not that important.

[toad3k]

I can think of one example where story trumped gameplay, for me anyhow.

The whole Legacy of Kain series was all story with very little compelling gameplay, but I played through it anyways because I wanted to see what happened. I know it is not everyone's cup of tea, but I really loved it.

Re:It's not that important.

[Sage Gaspar]

Aren't graphics a part of story? Isn't the gameplay tied to what's displayed on your screen?

It's really all interrelated, and you can't say whether pitching X thousand bucks over from "graphics" to "gameplay" is going to make a big impact.

Re:It's not that important.

[Drooling Iguana]

I thought the gameplay in Soul Reaver was great, with the enemies that couldn't be killed just by whacking them enough times, the puzzle-based boss fights, etc. True, there were a few too many block puzzles, but even they managed to do innovative things with the standard block puzzle design. Unfortunately, the gameplay went on a fairly steady downward slide through SR2 and Defiance.

Re:It's not that important.

[Das Modell]

I love Jade Empire. Yes, you do have to walk around, but I suppose I'm used to it (I play World of Warcract and Guild Wars, so I have to be). It's true though that Jade Empire doesn't leave much room for exploration, but there are hidden or semi-hidden quests and items to discover. On the other hand, Oblivion gives you 100% freedom with basically no story to back it up, and I quickly stopped playing (the lack of a story wasn't the only reason).

Also, what does being an evil character in JE or Fable have to do with expecting bad gameplay, assuming anyone actually does that (I don't)?

Re:It's not that important.

[Das Modell]

Eh, Dreamfall's story is basically good, but executed badly. The game just throws around plotlines, subplots, questions and mysteries around like they were going out of style, and they're never tied together into a coherent storyline. The storyline is actually a complete mess. Funcom has a lot to learn from Lucasarts.

I think you're wrong about saying that "even for an adventure game its really very low in terms of gameplay." Dreamfall has, in addition to your standard issue adventure gaming, puzzles (lockpicking, hacking etc.), fighting and stealth. That's a lot more than what most adventure games have. I would have preferred to have no stealth and fighting, and no deaths.

Re:It's not that important.

[BenjyD]

Fire Emblem had a story?

Re:It's not that important.

[zenhkim]

> Take the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game. Now imagine Disney or McDonalds releasing a clone, where you do all the same things, but all the actions have been changed to 'kid-friendly' versions.... It would suck.

Well, it *could* suck, but it doesn't necessarily have to. The first thing that popped into my mind when reading the above post was "The Simpsons: Hit And Run" -- which essentially is a 'kid-friendly' version of Grand Theft Auto (if you don't count Homer yelling "Ow, my ass!" or "Dammit, I dropped my kebob!") yet is one of my all-time favorite games.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go beat the pants off of Hit And Run with my killer combo -- the Hell Hearse and the Open Wheel Race Car. WOO-HOO !!

Re:It's not that important.

[Gulthek]

That is true for some modern games. Not so for others.

There's a big difference between 'Photopia' (which is what you describe) and 'Spider and Web' (which is what you say you want).

It's really simple.

[truthsearch]

You can make a game where there's no story at all and the player gets total freedom. That can get boring if the average player doesn't know how to create an experience or there feels like there's no point to being in the game. You can make a game where there's a strict story and the player has few options. That can get boring because the user doesn't have to think much.

So every game needs to strike a balance depending on its goals.

Re:It's really simple.

[lucky13pjn]

Tis why I enjoy GTA3. It has a story, but sometimes you just want to go into the game and cause carnage or just drive around or whatever.

Re:It's really simple.

[Sycraft-fu]

To a large degree it depends on the kind of game you are going for. Stories are good but they are limiting. The more rich a telling you do, the less there is for the player to fill in. As an ultimate example. story wise, take a book. A book must have a good story to be a good book since the story is all there is to go on. There's no visuals (assuming a text only book here) no interaction, nothing.

So with games, a lot of it depends on the kind of game you want. I love games with good stories, that's why I hold Baldur's Gate 2 to be the all time greatest RPG on any platform. The story line is really what elevated it to greatness for me. However, the story is very limiting. While you can set your own pace and do quests as you like, it's still very narrow in what you can do. Everything is scripted, nothing novel happens on replay.

One wouldn't want the same kind of story in Civilization. The magic of that game is the lack of story. You are provided with just the very basis of a story, the rest you write yourself through playing the game. "Here's the world, you rule a faction, do what you do best." I don't know that you'd want it any more detailed than that because to detail it is to constrain it.

So I'm not even sure it's about balance, but more about what kind of game you are going for. Some games work with little to no story, some games require a great story to work. It's more knowing what you are making than it is finding a particular balance. You can't be all things to all people and make everyone happy.

Re:It's really simple.

[Haeleth]

You can make a game where there's a strict story and the player has few options. That can get boring because the user doesn't have to think much.

I beg to differ. A good story never gets boring, because a good story has so much depth that it forces the player to think to follow it. There's a reason why novels and movies are still incredibly popular despite being completely non-interactive.

There's no reason why games should have shallow stories -- except that most game makers can't write for toffee and are too proud to admit it and pay for a decent script. So we have to put up with Yet Another Generic Tolkien Ripoff instead...

If stories mattered in games

[hey!]

Wouldn't they hire great known writers to create game-friendly stories, instead of cobbling some kind of nonsensical mishmash together themselves?

And I don't count movie adaptions, because you already know how the story ends.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[supabeast!]

"Wouldn't they hire great known writers to create game-friendly stories..."

Call me crazy, but I doubt that too many great known writers would want to write for video games. Maybe game companies could get people who churn out pulp gaming fiction or horror novels to come on board, but that would likely churn out the same derivative crap we get now, although the dialogue might be a little better.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[drx]

LucasArts and Infocom hired "writers" do make their stories and still made very much computer games. (Tho Lucas fell from grace with boring only-story games like "The Dig".)

Re:If stories mattered in games

[redragon]

But, if an auther/producer established up front that there was going to be a real relationship and not a "do as your told" kind of thing going on...you might just be able to.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[hey!]

Call me crazy, but I doubt that too many great known writers would want to write for video games.

Douglas Adams comes to mind. But his sort of game is kind of anachronistic.

Perhaps this is catch-22. Maybe the game industry doesn't have any great stories because the it has not attracted any great story tellers. Maybe great storytellers aren't attracted to games becuase there aren't any examples showing that you can tell a great story through a game.

Maybe game companies could get people who churn out pulp gaming fiction or horror novels to come on board, but that would likely churn out the same derivative crap we get now, although the dialogue might be a little better.

Who knows can say for sure whether there is potential for a terrific writer to do satisfying and creative work in the game medium until somebody actually does it? On the other hand if it's impossible (as I suspect may be the case but am not sure) then we'll never be able to be certain. Yet I do not think the problem is that gaming is beneath the dignity of an author. Supposing some day a great writer, like a Neil Gaiman, wrote a story centric game that (a) demonstrated that there is serious creative potential in the medium and (b) made him a lot of money, then I'd bet writers would be all over gaming like white on rice.

One potential might be for journeyman writers to work on creatively weak aspects of games, such as dialogue. If there were enough of them, and potential existed for telling great stories in a game, then sooner or later some dialog tweaking drone will write the next American Gods, only it will be in the computer game medium.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[hey!]

Had any of those writers writers written anything I'd have wanted to read?

If not then there's no reason that they'd write a game I'd have to play for a story.

There are a universe of competent writers who can put together a soundly crafted story. They'd have a well chosen setting, well defined characters, a clear problem, a coherent plot. The sentences and paragraphs would be properly constructed. Their stories would have all the sound craft elements that a University BA in creative writing would teach. But writing is one of those fields where there isn't simply a gulf between competence and greatness. Competence and greatness don't just live in different places of the same scale, but they're utterly different things. It's a happy occurance where they both are found together, but one can well exist without the other.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[der_joachim]

Two examples spring to mind: Douglas Adams in Spaceship Titanic (IIRC), and Clive Barker's Undying. I have played neither so I do not know whether they were any good.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[joystickgenie]

This is an idea that is brought up in the industry quite a bit. There is a view that people in the game industry can't be good writers and can't fit a story together and that if we hire pro writers the problem will go away.

There is a problem with that though people who write book scripts and screenplays have no idea how to write for a game. In books and screenplays the writer has complete control, the writer has complete control of the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the story, character in the story, and setting of the story. The writer has complete control over all of these things.

All of those factors can be taken away from the designer through games. Game designers do not have that luxury where and when, those aspects are completely up to the player because they have direct control over the characters actions. The what, and how is only partially in the designers control, you may know they have to do a certain action but you don't know what item or skill they are going to use to do it. The who and why can even be taken out of the designers hands at times, in the care of games where the player gets to make a custom character you can't make and references back to who the character is or why he wants anything.

Games are a unique medium where you have to try and tell a story without forcing a the player down it. Every time you define a who what where when why or how in a game the player feels like they are in less control over it. There is a balance you have to keep in games between what is defined and what is not. You have to give the player control over things at times and at other times you have to take it way. This is a balancing challenge that takes a lot of practice and understanding of the medium to work out. Just hiring a professional writer will not solve the problem telling stories in games correctly in fact it may make it harder to overcome. Games need designers who can write compelling stories. Designers have to be able to think like a programmer see like an artist and write like a professional writer while keeping in mind that they will not be in control over the final product. This is very hard to come by hence why stories in games is such a challenge.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Lord Kano]

And I don't count movie adaptions, because you already know how the story ends.

Precisely why I told my fiance that I wasn't going to see Titanic and why I told my girlfriend that I wasn't going to see Pearl Harbor.

LK

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Garrett Fox]

Apaloosa hired sci-fi writer David Brin ("Startide Rising," "Earth") to do the story for "Ecco the Dolphin: Defender of the Future." One of the game's designers said Brin didn't give them much to go on, though, providing only outlines of levels. On the other hand, the game's mechanics (small number of characters, little dialogue, little tool use beyond squeaking at stuff) limited the kind of story he could tell. It's interesting to consider whether "Ecco"'s game engine could have been used to tell a story with anything like the complexity of "Startide Rising," especially since that book was told from many characters' POV.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Anonymous Coward]

Had any of those writers writers written anything I'd have wanted to read?

I have no idea what you'd want to read, but Douglas Adams did write material that a lot of people choose to read.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Sage Gaspar]

"Great known writers" don't know how to write a good game. A good story makes use of the interactivity of the medium, and I'm not talking about being able to run and shoot.

An excellent, fairly recent example of this interactivity is Shadow of the Colossus, where at key points in the game you're given control over the character during a situation where you have absolutely no chance of prevailing. It dials up the dramatic tension by several notches and allows the player to experience the story rather than having it dictated to them. There have always been games where you're "supposed to lose" -- I'm looking at the standard RPG hallmark of the unwinnable battle -- but mostly these are cliched sideshows to the main action; you might as well have a cutscene for all they're worth.

Movie adaptations, by the by, have yet to turn out a game with a good story.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[lgw]

Because you were really seeing Titanic with your girlfriend and Pearl Harbor with your fiance?

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Dr_Barnowl]

Starship Titanic was awful, and so was the tie-in novel.

The best writer I am aware of having written outside and inside the media of games is Warren Spector, who did the backplot of Hostile Waters, one of the few games that can actually make me cry. (no, really. Even though the game is a 3rd person RTS/shootemup, a cutscene composed almost entirely of a bunch of national flags burning made me cry, because the dialog was so well executed, by the writer, and by the narrator, the peerless Tom Baker).

Re:If stories mattered in games

[Deluge]

Great known writers are unnecessary. Games with a solid premise (i.e. Half-Life) can have their story fleshed out into the HL excellence by nonprofessional writers. When you start with a stupid idea, however, no amount of literary genius will save you.

Re:If stories mattered in games

[supabeast!]

"Douglas Adams comes to mind. But his sort of game is kind of anachronistic."

Not to mention that his games were custom-written for his fanbase. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - it made a lot of sense in the 1980s when his books were explosively popular in english-speaking nations - but at the same time, neither of his games really had any appeal to anyone who wasn't already into his work.

"Supposing some day a great writer, like a Neil Gaiman, wrote a story centric game that (a) demonstrated that there is serious creative potential in the medium..."

It could happen, and I would like to see it happen, but I don't think the industry has been in a position to do so for a long time. I think that stories in games died after Planescape:Torment and System Shock 2 both flopped commercially, despite being two of the most critically acclaimed games ever. Now publishers are just too damned risk averse to try and do a great game by a great writer.

Maybe it could happen in Japan, but the rest of the world would just get a bad translation :( I shudder to think about the game we could get if Mistwalker studios teamed up with Gaiman for a big multi-national uber-RPG, but that probably won't happen...

Re:If stories mattered in games

[TheSlashFrog]

Wouldn't they hire great known writers to create game-friendly stories

You mean a big game company such as Valve Software would hire a successful writer such as Marc Laidlaw?

Re:If stories mattered in games

[TheSlashFrog]

Great known writers are unnecessary. Games with a solid premise (i.e. Half-Life) can have their story fleshed out into the HL excellence by nonprofessional writers.

From http://www.valvesoftware.com/people.html:

"Marc Laidlaw joined Valve in 1997, bringing his experience as an author of weird fiction to bear on creating the Half-Life storyline. He was sole writer on Half-Life and Half-Life 2, and persists as lead writer for the Half-Life 2 Episodes [...] His novels include Dad's Nuke, Neon Lotus, Kalifornia, The Orchid Eater, and the award-winning The 37th Mandala, as well as The Third Force"

Sorry but the facts don't seem to support your argument here...

Gameplay first. Story second

[digitrev]

Like what mash said, you need good gameplay. Without it, you have nothing. I would much rather play a 2 hour game with great gameplay and no story, than a 5 hour game with piss-poor gameplay and an amazing story. Half the time I end up skipping the story anyways. I want to play, not watch a damn movie or read a book.

Re:Gameplay first. Story second

[trdrstv]

Sometimes the story is engrossing, but in general I play a game to play a game. Infact Multiplayer options play heavily into my purchase decisions, as they get more use. One I finish a game where the story is the driving force it sits on the shelf, and only the ones with REALLY tight gameplay get pulled back out.

Re:Gameplay first. Story second

[MindStalker]

Exactly, like most people I can only watch a movie once or a few times at most (with some exceptions) a movie that has some game choice elements could be entertaining (though I've never seen it done well), but it would still suffer the same fate as other movie, you can only watch it so many times. Gameplay is a completly different beast, you don't get bored of good gameplay, this is why simple games like tetris is still popular, but any specific implementation of it, especially the ones with storylines, quickly fade into history.

Re:Gameplay first. Story second

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

which is why we need games that are multiplayer AND have a story. I mean, just a year or so ago there was this survival horror game (I can't believe I forgot the name) that took place in a school and you could play co-op with another person. To be honest the game didn't play very well (I'm not a Survival Horror static camera kind of gamer) but following the story together kept us playing.

Re:Gameplay first. Story second

[MBGMorden]

I'm the opposite. I like games with amazing stories, regardless of gameplay. The game will at least have music, pictures, and some level of interactivity (however light), but can tell a story whose length rivals a book (which never could be done with a movie).

Is my preference better than yours? No. But that's why we get multiple types of games: different people want different things. The game industry shouldn't be (and I don't really think it is) trying to move to gameplay in place of story. They should be catering to people who like both (or either) elements.

Re:Gameplay first. Story second

[Das Modell]

By that logic, shouldn't people stop reading books and watching movies because they want to play and interact, and not watch a damn movie or read a book? What's wrong with watching cutscenes in games or reading dialogue, if that same thing is perfectly ok in movies and books?

I'm sure Grim Fandango would be a fantastic experience if you skipped all the dialogue and cutscenes and just ran around taking items from point A to point B.

What about FFVIII

[lucky13pjn]

I liked the story of FFVIII more than the gameplay. But perhaps that is just me...

Re:What about FFVIII

[digitrev]

Well maybe if they spent less time working on the story, they could've actually done something with the gameplay.

Re:What about FFVIII

[voice_of_all_reason]

Ah, I see you were also suckered into buying "Squaresoft Presents: Draw Forever VIII"

Re:What about FFVIII

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked the story of FFVIII more than the gameplay. But perhaps that is just me...

Regardless of how much the gameplay in Final Fantasy VIII sucked, its CGI was just beautiful. Really, the story itself didn't matter, the CGI could have been about anything at all, but it was so beautifully done for its time. I'm not FFVIII is an example of why story matters, I think it serves to show how sufficiently-polished and cinematic graphics can enthrall any gamer.

Gameplay complaints, namely that the guardian force system kept the user watching the same long scenes over and over again, are oddly restricted to the West. In Japan, the game was a hit and received excellent reviews.

Re:What about FFVIII

[digitrev]

No. I only own FF I&2:DoS, which contains FFI (no story), FFII (odd story). I also own FFIV (haven't finished it). Oh, and FFTA. I've played parts of VII and X, and frankly, those two games were severely lacking in decent gameplay.

Re:What about FFVIII

[OK PC]

It was a shame that the draw system drew (I'm sorry!) attention from what was the most ambitious of the Playstation FFs. Still it was a stupid idea.

Re:What about FFVIII

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Regardless of how much the gameplay in Final Fantasy VIII sucked, its CGI was just beautiful. Really, the story itself didn't matter, the CGI could have been about anything at all, but it was so beautifully done for its time.

I will maintain to the day I die that they made the CGI sequences first and then built the game around them. Final Fantasy 80210 had a plot that would make a B-movie weep.

"We're teenagers who look like thirty year olds who grew up in an orphanage together and the Sorceress was our Matron! But she's not really evil, she's just being controlled by another man-Sorceress imprisioned in a satellitte, who's being controled in the past by another Sorceress from the future who's trying to Kompress time so she can.... do something henious ... and.... I really stopped caring after disc two. Here's a mini game you can't complete because they never released the PocketStation!(TM) over here. P.S. Don't level up because the enemies just get harder."

Worse games had been made, but never on so big a budget.

Re:What about FFVIII

[voice_of_all_reason]

Oh yeah, the story and visuals were phenomenal. I wish someone would release a hack with a gameplay/eq system like 7.

When is an RPG not an RPG? When you get 4 weapons for the whole game and no armor. No output for my kleptomanic fantasies! I mean, what's the point of being the Hero of the World if you can't go into a random townperson's home and start rifling through their stuff for potions and money?

Re:What about FFVIII

[Haeleth]

Here's a mini game you can't complete because they never released the PocketStation!(TM) over here.

That's why you should have got the PC version, which came with a PC port of the PocketStation minigame that you could leave running in the background while you worked.

It still sucked, but it sucked less.

Re:What about FFVIII

[Fallingcow]

Am I the only one who finds the text in that game--though not in any other FF before or after--practically unreadable, even on a large screen?

I can't play it because of that. I never get more than a few minutes in before it starts giving me a headache. It's not just the dialogue, either; the menus are, if anything even worse.

Ugh.

Re:What about FFVIII

[payndz]

I've never played FFVIII, but I thought FFVII was an involving story spoiled by endless random monster attacks and boss battles...

I never actually finished it, because I got stuck on one particular boss battle, and just couldn't face drudging back from the save point and sitting through the same dialogue over and over again only to be killed because I hadn't built up the character's spells or stats or whatever the 'right' way.

If a game's selling itself on its story, why can't it have a 'just pretend I won this tedious battle, give me the minimum XP, and let me find out what happens next' option? I don't have to beat a challenge to watch the next chapter on a DVD!

Re:What about FFVIII

[atomicstrawberry]

The people who actually like FF8's story appear to be few and far between. It's actually got one of the best stories of any of the FF games, primarily because everything is circular. The main issue with it is that Square executed the story badly, and rather than leaving things 'mysterious' in places, those gaps which they expected you to be able to fill in intuitively ended up feeling like gaping plot holes and inconsistencies. Add to that that the whole gameplay system was ludicrously easy (spend a few hours levelling up the right GF abilities at the beginning of the game and Squall can beat every boss on the first disc in one round) and it's not hard to see why people didn't like it. Especially coming off FF7 which, while its story is weak, was extremely well executed in comparison, and it had a much better character customisation system in Materia.

Re:What about FFVIII

[donaldm]

I have to admit the story in FFV111 was interesting and the graphics for the PS1 were excellent but after awhile I just got bored and lost interest at the end of the third disk mainly because I did not like the main character. Now the other FF games (6 (US3), 7 and 10) were more interesting as far as I was concerned because I could really get to like the characters.

Go to the Forge

[Valdrax]

The Forge is a website dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games. It was created by the author of the indy RPG Sorceror who wrote an essay that defined three broad different player agendas for playing a game: Simulationism, Narrativsim, and Gamism.

Roughly defined:
Simulationism is about experiencing or exploring a setting, situation, character, etc.
Narrativism is about story.
Gamism is about defeating challenges.

Most good games contain elements of all three, but the best focus on one or two areas to deeply satisfy a kind of gamer.

All this guy is doing is what many game snobs have done time and time again before -- stating that one of these three play style is The One True Style and demanding that everyone else create games that satisfy his gaming goals. I personally enjoy the very kinds of games that he is bashing the most and find the open-ended exploration RPG to be boring and pointless. That doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made, though -- unlike him.

In other words, let's just leave this guy to his own elitist irrelevance, move on, and create games that satisfy different players.

Re:Go to the Forge

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, this is very misrepresentative of the Forge and Ron Edwards. (1) Edwards indicates these three categories (not defined entirely accurately in the quoted post) as Creative Agenda, which each gamer exhibits in varying degrees at various times. (2) None of these is formulated as a "One True Way". In fact, a lot of the game theory on the Forge is predicated on recognizing that different people want different things at different times. The Sim/Nar/Gam stuff is just the beginning of some terminology with which to think about this stuff. Edwards and many people on the Forge have posted about experimenting with different games and really enjoying them in the context of the particular priorities that game tends to support. (3) The Forge primarily exists to encourage and support "indie" (ie, creator owned) RPGs, with no obligation or necessary reference to particular positions in the theory discussions. (4) At least as much attention is given to "Actual Play" discussions as to Theory discussions, because those guys believe that theory unfounded in reality isn't worth much.

I could probably come up with more relevant counterpoints, but I will sum up. The Forge community has an unreasonably high population of thoughtful and polite people for an Internet forum. They like to critically analyze and discuss RPGs. As a result, they have developed a lot of theory and specialized terminology, such that there is a steep learning curve to catch up. Some people find this elitist, in the way that physics is an elitist science because there is so much to study if one wants to knowledgably discuss cutting-edge developments across that field.

Re:Go to the Forge

[Deluge]

Most good games contain elements of all three, but the best focus on one or two areas to deeply satisfy a kind of gamer.

I'd say it's the other way around. Consider the GTA franchise. It had strong elements of simulation, challenges, and an excellent story. And it sold by the millions, which is not all that common.

RPGs, also an immensely popular genre with many bestselling titles, also tend to have elements of all three.

The great games that succeed without all three are actual simulation games where the gameplay challenge and the gameplay mechanics providing the immersion do not require a story to hold things together (Racing sims, Civ/Simcity type games, etc)

Re:Go to the Forge

[Valdrax]

I'm failing to see how any of the 4 points you brought up counter anything that I said.

1. I deliberately gave a "rough" definition because explaining the finer points would take way too long and distract from my point that the guy in the linked article is essentially a One True Play Style bigot and should be ignored as such.
   
2. The first sentence is exactly what I said. The latter are clarifications of a point that I didn't make.
   
3. That's exactly what I said. The site is "dedicated to trying to create indy, table-top RPG games." I never hinted that the discussions were all about theory, just that the founder wrote some essays about it.
   
4. Not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is why I didn't bring it up.

I know that some Forge participants spend a lot of time defending what the site is about from people new to it and its ideas, but I didn't say anything that disagrees with the "counter"-points you bring up, so don't use me as a straw man here.

Re:Go to the Forge

[SanityInAnarchy]

I find the best games combine these.

Allow me to cite the Halo games. The story was as good as any FF game, the gameplay was as good as any shooter -- id/Doom fun and military tactical all in one. And especially if you've read the books, the Chief is an experience.

When's the last time

[Astarica]

You heard anybody recognized in a game for writing the story? Sure, the designers get recognized, but even if they wrote the story, they do more than just that.

Games have the disadvantage in that a poorly designed system constantly undoes any sense of immersion. If I wrote: "The heroes fought against the supreme evil, and it was a hard battle but they won", you can at least believe that this thing I wrote about is supposed to be hard. If you act it out in a movie, even with pretty bad acting it's not hard to make a reasonable pass that this is supposed to be a hard battle. But how can you possibly take something seriously if you demolish the supreme evil in 3 hits? It's a lost art to balance game remotely as difficult as what your story claims to be. In theory, the final battle in any game is supposed to be the climatic one, and the most difficult one which is why victory has meaning. But there are plenty of games where the last battle isn't remotely the hardest one, not even counting super extra hard gimmick bosses.

Re:When's the last time

[voice_of_all_reason]

Well, if you're referring to a hypothetical RPG, the answer is "you chose a story path that did not result in a hard final battle."

The way I would interpret your example is that if you wanted to, you could've rushed ahead and faced an extremely difficult final boss, but you took your time to play liesurely and get all the best spells and equipment. Some people like the former, some the latter. That's not poorly designed, it's choose-your-own-adventure.

Re:When's the last time

[Astarica]

Even without factoring massive overkill 'you-win' stuff, there are plenty of games where the last battle is not the hardest although they clearly should be according to the story and it's not limited to RPGs. For example in Super Mario World, Bowser is not necessarily any harder than castle 7 (I actually have a harder time on castle 7 than Bowser's Castle). In FFX it's arguable whether Sin is even harder than some of the random encounters along the way (King Behemoth, for example). How are you supposed to take the power of the bosses seriously when his henchman could be harder given the exact same characters? On a game like Mario it's okay because no one plays Mario for the story, but it's still not a good design. The problem is more amplified on anything where story actually does matter, most notably RPGs.

This also works the other way around. Take a game like the original Street Fighter 2, a game that's hard to argue a story even exists. But because the bosses are appropriately stronger than your starting 8, and Bison is noticeably more difficult than rest of the bosses, it is easy to imagine that these extra powerful guys are probably up to no good and clearly Bison being the leader and the most powerful is obviously the most evil, which is why you're trying to defeat him. Because the characters are designed appropriately, it makes it easier to accept whatever random plot they tacked on to Street Fighter. When Akuma is introduced there sure wasn't any info on him I am aware of. He was just an overpowered special boss. But then people filled in the lore. He uses moves like Ryu and Ken so he was the one who killed Shang Long. He is powerful and we all know you don't just get powerful for being nice, so he must be practicing some dark martial arts, which led to the whole 'killing-intent' thing i Alpha series. None of this is anything worthy of literary praise, but it sure is a pretty good result for a character that started out with no story whatseover.

Good game design allows the players to fill in the blanks, and it'd seem the blanks people are able to fill in are often at least as good as what the writers could have come up with.

Re:When's the last time

[voice_of_all_reason]

I could never beat Goro in the original Mortal Kombat without taking advantage of a bug (wait until I was winning, then do endless chain-punches which made him wait without doing anything and win by decision). Shang Tsung was no cakewalk, but certainly easier.

Re:When's the last time

[Astarica]

Actually that's a very good example. Clearly the story implies Shang Tsung > Goro. However Shang Tsung is only hard if he morphs into Goro which means Shang Tsung is strictly weaker than Goro (because he's not Goro 100% of the time). So it is hard to take the story seriously. This probably explains why Shang Tsung was quickly demoted to a regular character in the subsequent games. While no one plays Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the story, it never helps the game if you design the characters set up in a way that contradicts what the story claims.

Re:When's the last time

[psxman]

When's the last time you heard anybody recognized in a movie for writing the story? (forgetting book-to-movie adaptations)

Re:When's the last time

[2008]

"When's the last time you heard anybody recognized in a game for writing the story?"

Clive Barker's Undying. Hideo Kojima is also well respected for the Metal Gear series which he created and writes.
It's rare but it's not unheard of.

Stories matter

[slindseyusa]

Stories can make all the difference. They put everything else in context. Without a good story, you're following a script... Get this artifact, get this weapon, kill this many bad guys, etc. It's about repetitive movements. With a story there, the author has the ability to provide inventive ways to accomplish a goal, not simply "leveling up" forever. Of course, that requires an inventive game author. As another commenter noted, it's in the balance of the two.

Stories matter in Games...

[Overzeetop]

...like articles matter in porno mags.

Re:Stories matter in Games...

[Anonymous Coward]

So that you can claim you were really doing something else?

Wife: What were you doing?
You: Nothing
Wife: You were playing a video game!
You: No, No, I was just following the story.

Re:Stories matter in Games...

[ichigo 2.0]

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." - John Carmack, iD Software

And we all know how fun his games are...

Re:Stories matter in Games...

[Psychotext]

He makes games?!? I though he just did engine technology demos...

Re:Stories matter in Games...

[Kurayamino-X]

The story in Doom 3 was everything a doom fan could have expected, it wasn't complicated or beleivable, but I was satisfied with it because it was DOOM.
It's just the gameplay had about as much imagination as the story...

Background information is vital

[soft_guy]

Look at a game like Myst. The whole point is to reveal more and more of the story. Same thing with most interactive fiction.

And I've always wondered about the background story for games like Pong, Joust, Dig Dug (what I wouldn't give to know the backstory of THAT game!), Kangaroo, Asteroids, Tempest (TEMPEST!!!!).

The stories need to be revealed!!!

Re:Background information is vital

[IL-CSIXTY4]

Atari usually included background stories in the manuals for the 2600 versions of their games...

"You are Dig-Dug, the underground miner. With your jet-powered shovel, you create intricate, sub-terranean mazes. Ever on the watch for vegetable prizes, you must also look out for the fierce Fygar(tm) and mean Pooka(tm) that lurk underground. Their touch kills! Worse, these two meanies can transform into spooky ghosts that will appear out of nowhere and haunt you to death."

Did you know that Super Breakout was about a one-man space shuttle encountering a mysterious force field?

This manual and more at AtariAge

Not always...

[kabocox]

I hated the story in FFX, but it was an excellent game besides the story or the characters of Wakka, Yuna, or Tidus. I found FFX fun inspite of the story not because of it. I'd almost say the same thing about KH2. I love playing KH2 and the actual game playing excellent, but the story isn't something that I really cared about.

I'd like to see Square make a game that wasn't a super environmentalist the world will end because the life blood of the planet is running out because of our single evil corporation/empire. I've been kinda of sick of that plot thread for awhile. I'd actually like to see the reverse that the evil Mana/heart of the world is flourishing creating monsters and its your group's task to stop/kill off the evil heart of the world so that humans can continue to live peacefully in a hightech civilization.

Re:Not always...

[digitrev]

Then you should listen to (Nothing But) Flowers by Talking Heads.

Re:Not always...

[Anonymous Coward]

incoming account:daskinil

i think that idea of journey to destroy the heart of the world would be a fun twist on a game.

I also agree that certain games are best with stories. I loved Jade Empire with the great story and ability to follow a rather rigid storyline but branched enough to be completely evil. Also, games like Baldur's Gate... people value the story in these and other RPG's. While 1st person shooters and MMO's like WoW- i could rarely care if a story existed at all.

Re:Not always...

[codemaster2b]

The reason that you won't see this... is that it simply isn't allegorically true.

The world IS not evil - we are. God is at the heart of the world and killing off God so man can live peacefully in a hightech civilization is a lie that we have already bought into. Been there, done that - take a look around.

Re:Not always...

[ElleyKitten]

I found FFX fun inspite of the story not because of it.

I'm the reverse. I really only played it for the story. The gameplay wasn't bad, but it wasn't special. Even FFVIII, though I hated the gamepley, I went through most of it because I wanted to see the story.

I'd actually like to see the reverse that the evil Mana/heart of the world is flourishing creating monsters and its your group's task to stop/kill off the evil heart of the world so that humans can continue to live peacefully in a hightech civilization.

If you kill the earth, humans die too. That's kinda the point. But that plot doesn't have to be used all the time, and it isn't. FFX didn't have mana/heart of the world. It just had Sin, which was killing people, not the planet. The only FFs that had the save nature concept was I, VII, and IX (maybe III, that's the only one I haven't played). There's stupider cliches they've used a lot more.

Re:Not always...

[kabocox]

If you kill the earth, humans die too. That's kinda the point.

Um, I like fiction with the Gaia living earth concept every now and then. I don't believe that our Earth is an intellient sentient entity. What I want isn't to kill off the entire freaking ecosystem. I want to kill of the sentient spirital Gaia element that creates monsters. Call creating monsters, the planet's method of antibodies. Oh, I've got an idea. An FF game where the humans are the 3-4 generation of colonists from space and the Gaia planet is just starting to react to the humans on the world by creating monsters to remove them. The humans are terraforming the Gaia world to be more habitable and do have a nice high tech civilization, but are basically cut off for generations at a time so can't just leave.

Re:Not always...

[Chibi-Hikaru]

I keep having Phantasy Star II and PSO pop into my head there with a little bit of PS4. Now while not exactly that plot there are simliar concepts running through those games.

Re:Not always...

[SanityInAnarchy]

FFX didn't have mana/heart of the world. It just had Sin, which was killing people, not the planet.

Sin you can take both ways. Sin is Nature, and most of the creatures in the game world are Fiends, which as I understand it can come from animals dying as much as people. After Sin dies, we get FFX-2, which is a modern world. But Sin is also a human creation, and has an effect much like nukes -- and we also have the ban of Machina, and all of the cities are small.

So FFX manages to have both a "humans are evil" plot and a "let's subdue nature" plot, all mixed in with the World War II / Hiroshima metaphor that seems to be in most good, serious anime.

Re:Not always...

[ElleyKitten]

I don't believe the earth is an intelligent entity in real life either, but I think we're thinking of Gaia in two different ways. I see it as a personification of the ecosystem, you think of it as a supernatural thing that just lives in the earth. Your idea of alien planet rejecting humans does sound pretty interesting.

Stories matter to me.

[EnsilZah]

There are two kinds of games i like to play, Story based and Skill based.
Story based ones are like a good book or a movie, games like Fallout, Homeworld, The Dig, Half Life 2 to a lesser extent.
I don't really mind that the gameplay is pretty linear.
Skill based ones are games like HL2DM or Warcraft 3 on battlenet.
The fun i get out of those is that i learn how to beat other people.

Now if you look at a game like Oblivion, which i think was rather boring, you have a huge world with lots of side quests, lots of eyecandy, but when you get down to every element it's rather simple and uninspired.

I think that game makers shouldn't try too hard to make games seem nonlinear because they eventually will be anyway, only crappier.

Re:Stories matter to me.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I think that game makers shouldn't try too hard to make games seem nonlinear because they eventually will be anyway, only crappier.

This is exactly why Max Payne was linear. They even had it up on their FAQ page -- they'd much rather do one story and get it done right than do many stories and have them all suck.

I wonder if this was a reaction to GTA -- the game did have a kind of a GTA feel to it, being a third-person shooter...

narrative in games is overdone

[maynard]

I skip through all cutscenes because IMO they get in the way of gameplay. I really couldn't care less who the bad guy is, why I have to defeat him/her, and the bullshit backstory. Just show me where to shoot. Consider classic video games from the late '70s and early '80s: Asteroids, Space Invaders, Defender, Pac Man, Battlezone, etc etc etc. Did these games have anything more than a single-sentence concept narrative? Contrast this with Dragon's Lair: All narrative, all the time - and boring as hell. What I want from a videogame is constant over-stimulation... which the classics did well, and which current game narratives interfere with. This is like the debate between Quake 3 and Quake 4: Quake 3 - all over-stimulation all the time; Quake 4 (and Doom 3): Boring narrative gets in the way of fun.

JMO...

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[preppypoof]

sigh...you remind me of http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/10/07

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[Anonymous Coward]

*exactly* --M

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[Sage Gaspar]

I think the main problem in these games is that they communicate the story almost entirely through narrative. Narrative has its place, but there's no reason we can't have truly interactive stories at this point. An FPS like Half-Life 2 does a pretty good job of this; there are story-oriented portions of the game, but most of the time you're in full control of your character during them.

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[easychord]

One thing makes story sequences where the user is control worse than many cut scenes. When I'm bored with the story I can't do anything to cut to the chase. But it's interactive, so whopee, I can go and look at the wallpaper while some NPC's have a conversation.

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[Compholio]

All narrative, all the time - and boring as hell. What I want from a videogame is constant over-stimulation... which the classics did well, and which current game narratives interfere with.

You haven't played all the classics then: how about Monkey Island, Myst, and the old Sierra games?

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these "classics" of which you speak? "Monkey Island"? "Myst"? Weren't those just cheesy PC games from the '90s? Oh yeah. Classics. But not Asteroids or Defender, and certainly not Pong. Sheesh.

Re:narrative in games is overdone

[mjtaylor24601]

I imagine he was referring to King's Quest and Space Quest. Say what you will about the adventure game genera (I personally loved them and wish people made more of them these days) but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that these weren't classics.

Just a game?

[slipnslidemaster]

In today's world, games are often times not just games. They are multimedia cash vehicles. So if you have hope of someday creating a franchise with movies, comicbooks, action figures, DVD's, etc. then you really have to have some sort of story to hang your hat on.

One of the reasons, in my opinion, that video game movies have done relatively poorly at the box office is because the characters and plots of the games are underdeveloped causing an almost unrecognizable movie script.

The movie goer isn't happy because the producers are trying to make the movie contain game elements and the video game player isn't happy because the movie departs severly from the limited plot points in the game.

Throwing in a "Dr. Carmack" here and there isn't going to save it if there is no story.

Here's a truth bomb

[Quiet_Desperation]

Does story matter? Sometimes.

That's it. It's all personal taste. Persoanlly, I like games both with and without stories.

People need to stop trying to find a Universal Law Of Everything for terminally subjective issues.

Link for the lazy?

[RingDev]

Do you have a link for this Forge web site?

-Rick

Re:Link for the lazy?

[Achoi77]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/

Check the articles by Ron Edwards

Stories DO Matter

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

Think about it... how many games do you know of that have been made in the past few years that don't have a story? There's a handful of puzzlers, true, but the number of those pale in comparison to the myriad FPS's, RPGs, strategy games, etc. being released every year.

And what do they all have in commin? They have a story.

Everything these days - down to the deep-engrossing plot of Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy to the spiritual journey of Prey - has a story. Sports games have a story; see the "career mode" that most have. Open-ended games like GTA3 and Oblivion have a story, though it's skippable. Heck, even the "gameplay-based" games released for major consoles these days have one; they may be forgettable - who really remembers the premise for Katamari Damacy? - but they're at least there to give the character, and by extension the player, some motivation. They keep us playing, to an extent, because we have a reason for playing beyond beating our high score or getting the next uber weapon.

And while some may consider them an artificial or contrived way of doing so, they aren't any more than the plot to your favorite concept album is a contrived way of keeping you listening. Sure, "Operation: Mindcrime" is good music, but would people love it as much if the music wasn't framed around a story of the dangers of fanatical devotion to an ideology? Just so, would Half-Life, Warcraft 3, or Diablo II be the same if you removed the story behind them? Sure, they'd still be fun, but there would just be something missing.

So, yes, stories are important in modern games. (Note that I added the qualifier "modern" to pre-empt the usual reply of, "but games from 1982 didn't need stories!" Yeah, and they also didn't need more than four bits per scanline.)

Re:Stories DO Matter

[ichigo 2.0]

would ... Diablo II be the same if you removed the story behind them?

Wait, D2 had a story? ;)

I think most dedicated D2 players would agree that all the dialogue and movies just cause a few seconds to be wasted on useless skipping of things.

Re:Stories DO Matter

[trdrstv]

Yes, most have them now even if laughably simple. The fact that they are thrown in as an afterthought for most games shows how much (rather how little) they are really needed. Do you need a story for DDR? How about Guitar Hero? I got one for you; Princess Peach / Zelda gets kidnapped by Bowser/ Bowser Jr, Gannon /Gannondorf and you need to do plenty of convoluted non-sensical (but fun) tasks to rescue her. There, Story's done.

Stories do matter, but like Graphics and Sound they are a smaller part of the over-all production. The reason the Atari 2600 (and the NES, Colecovision, et al) sold well was because you could do a game with primitive graphics and sound (or without a significant story) if it had tight controlls and strong gameplay.

Gameplay > All.

Re:Stories DO Matter

[Frozen Void]

Yeah, its just non-stop monster genocide. People just search for items and story is concerned only when they do quests or rush through them. The game consists of leveling.
That why i don't play it anymore, plus it deletes inactive characters.
Starcraft is way better.

Re:Stories DO Matter

[Aladrin]

I think it's worth noting that even the small puzzle games are going this route. Check out the games on Reflexive.net and you'll see most of the new games are the same old puzzles, but with a story attached. Often the story is quite sad and uninspired, and nearly totally unrelated to the task at hand... But there IS a story.

Now and Then

[spykemail]

I've played video games most of my life and I can't recall one complex story. I don't think that's because I have a bad memory or that games don't have them, I think it's because complex storylines are doomed to be forgotten (in games). When you're watching a television series or inside a standalone movie the twists and turns of the plot are everything, but in a game where you're the one making the decisions, not so much.

This doesn't always have to be so. In certain gendres the storyline is more important. In the future we'll hopefully have icreasingly interactive games where the player has such a dynamics effect on the story that it really matters to him or her. But for now I think that, for most gendres, the best thing to do is to create a good, solid, but simple storyline for players to follow as they play your game.

Re:Now and Then

[discord5]

Planescape Torment was a game with a great storyline, unfortunatly the RPG didn't do so well.

marathon

[ChristTrekker]

I don't care what anyone says, the Marathon Trilogy is still one of the best games I've ever played. The intriguing plot is one of the main reasons why. It also had great gameplay.

Final Fantasy

[prockcore]

Games are all about the player experience -- about DOING things, not about watching things or hearing about things.

Sounds like he's never played any of the Final Fantasies. A battle is 5 seconds of pressing buttons, and 5 minutes of watching FMV.

Re:Final Fantasy

[donaldm]

Evidently you never faced the Real Omega (FFX) in the Omega Dungeon. In addition there are some encounters towards the end of the game were you can get killed in one round without getting a turn.

Seriously a person plays a game for many reasons and there are many types of games out there from First Person Shooters (FPS), Sports (huge selection) , Action/Adventure (first or third person), Fighting (or beat em ups), Strategy, Role Playing and many other types. Personally I find most FPS games an adrenalin rush for about 30 minutes and boring after that, while Action/Adventure games and some RPG's I can play for hours at a time, although I will admit that for these types of games a story enhances the game-play.

To me the game-play is more important than the storyline however a good or unusual storyline sometimes makes what would be an ok game an excellent game.

Re:Final Fantasy

[BenjyD]

Indeed - a lot of JRPGs seem to suffer from far too much story. Tales of Symphonia would have been far better if they'd stripped out a third or a half of the plot. There's only so many times I can care about "OMG you betrayed your friends" and "OMG you're losing your humanity".

RPG with no story

[jhfry]

Typically, when I think of a RPG I can't imagine not having a story to follow. What, no evil to overcome, no goal? Well I have played one RPG with out a story and it really wasn't all that bad. It was a game released in 1992 called Darklands. The game was truely nonlinar, had no goal except perhaps to increase your fame. Overall, it was not one that would compete with anything today but it did have it's appeal.

the best video game story ever...

[AndyG314]

Now it is the beginning of a fantastic story! Let us make a journey to the cave of monsters!

it's about the character

[crazycarl812]

More important than the overall story is the main character. When you play a game you take control of the character and if that character has no purpose, no meaning and no motivation, what do you have? Do you have a plane that simply shoots down other fighters with mega weapons or are you a rogue fighter on a philosophical task (with mega weapons)? Are you driven to play because you want to see what this character can do, or what the plane can do?

If you're going to develop a character you're already on your way to a story and I just can't say that I don't want to know what my character is thinking. I want to be able to agree or disagree. I want to be able to take risks that I may or may not think my character is capable of doing, not just what I think I can do by controlling the character.

It's not that important.-perspectives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Game Design Perspectives (with CD-ROM)

Everyone has their own idea of what good game design is, and this unique collection of articles provides a variety of different perspectives and ideas to consider in your designs. The articles are written by a diverse group of designers with varying levels of experience. Most of the key areas of game design are covered, and practical techniques and tools are included throughout. Each section begins with a broad overview of the topic and then includes a collection of ideas from other designers on how they think about or approach the subject. If you are just beginning in game design, you'll find useful information throughout the book, and if you're an experienced designer, you'll find new ideas to complement and compare with your own designs. Producers and managers will also benefit from the user community and managing a game development business sections. If you're interested in learning how other designers think about game design, you'll find plenty of great, and sometimes controversial, ideas to consider here!

For me, yes. See "Marathon" vs. "Doom" and Bungie

[interactive_civilian]

Back in the early/mid-90s, when FPS were just starting to grow, everyone was all about Doom and Doom II. You know: Run around. find red key. find door. push button. next level. All while shooting anything that moved.

Then a small company called Bungie Software(now Bungie Studios, owned by Microsoft) came out with Marathon. It didn't look all that different (at a glance) to Doom (well, IMHO it looked better, and you actually had to aim your weapons with no reticle). You could still shoot anything that moved, even civilians with no consequences (it wasn't until Marathon 2 that the NPCs started shooting back if you killed too many of them). However, suddenly you were immersed in this incredibly awesome, intricate story. IMnsHO, it had one of the best balances of gameplay and story and actually made the game really worth playing and replaying(the Doom games were great for stress relief, but not much more).

I wasn't much of a gamer then, and still am not one (being a Mac user has its drawbacks), but that set the standard for gaming for me. Give me a good story AND good gameplay and I will buy your game. I have and still do follow Bungie, even after Microsoft bought them, becuase they have always focused on excellent gameplay combined with an interesting story, and usually excellent replayability. The Marathon series had both, the Myth series had both, Oni (though it was finished by...RockStar?) had it, Halo had it, Halo 2 had it (though not quite the replayability of Halo).

Anyway, like I said I am not much of a gamer, but, with the exception of the Dead or Alive series, story does matter (DoA is strictly for stress relief). And Bungie has done admirably in these respects.

Stories have their place.

[sc0ttyb]

Not all games are meant to have stories.

If a game is to have a story, it should be built around it, not shoehorned in around a tech demo. A game with story solely in mind should use gameplay to help tell it, not the other way around. Obviously, this doesn't always happen, and there are examples of gameplay getting in the way of story and vice versa.

I don't mind cutscenes in games that help tell the story, because they give me motivation to continue. The Soul Reaver series is one such case that I actually tried my hardest to get to the cutscenes as quickly as possible because the story and voice-acting was just awesome. The Silent Hill series is another example of this, as is the Thief series.

Story belongs in games when the goal is to tell said story and make the player feel like you're letting them in on secrets their character isn't aware of yet. I don't need some long story to help me enjoy a Gradius game or some big convoluted character development just to kick ass. I don't need it, but if the story is there from the very beginning and is well thought out and integrated into the gameplay experience, then yes, I want to know why X sword is significant, or why Y wears an old, ratty strip of blood-stained cloth around his arm, or why Z is the anti-hero.

Re:Stories have their place.

[Brothernone]

I have to agree with the parent. The story in the Legacy of Kain series (taht spawned Soul Reaver) is what drives the player. The entire mythos of Nazgoth is an amazing story that the gameplay helps tell. The real drive in theese games to hear the next tid-bit, the next twist. Story was waht MADE the LoK games, and I think that series is a great example of story drivin gameplay.

Battletech/Mechwarrior

[BlueStrat]

There's a game series in which the story came first, with an entire universe created in board games and a sci-fi novel series. The story and timeline in the Mechwarrior games are a vital part of the game IMO.

In the Mechwarrior4: Mercenaries game, the player actually interacts with the story, in that choosing different mercenary "contracts" affects future contract/mission availability, as well as factional relationships with "employers".

Overall, I suppose the importance of the story in a game depends on the game, and what a particular player wants from a game. Someone that wants 20 minutes of FPS or arcade-type non-stop action isn't too worried about a backstory. Others that want a more involved experience will place more importance on the backstory.

Cheers!

Strat

sometimes.....

[Dangolo]

Final Fantasy 7 is the most popular video game of all time in Japan according to several websites.
It is my favorite game of all time and no game since then has come close to making a story that rich and enjoyable.
sure, shooters and similar 'brainless' type games are still alot of fun although void of any storyline, but they don't ahve to be since they are played as a simple diversion.

Personally i find it heartbreaking that nobody has made a better story since 1996 when FF7 appeared. how many imaginitive novels have we read as kids that would be AMAZING video game stories today (ENDERS GAME ftw)!! Hell if sony decided to merly update the graphics on FF7 to todays state of the artness, they'd sell milllions.

can it be that game companies just want to get you addicted to their games with the least amount of effort and the most amount of gain? have they no souls?

Storylines dont matter??

[treak007]

Tell that to Nintendo games such as Zelda. I dont think their games would half as addictive if their storylines werent usually so good.

Re:Storylines dont matter??

[trdrstv]

Ok, I LOVE Zelda and Own all the games (minus the CD-i's of course) but the Zelda Stories were never very strong. What kept ME playing at least, was the tight controls and the exploration. The Zelda series that never disapointed me in terms of gameplay/ value/ time sink and the stories served their purpose, but if taken out of the context of the game itself, they are 'unexcaptional'.

Re:Storylines dont matter??

[treak007]

see, I was truly captivated by the story lines of the Zelda series. Especially Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker. While I believe that the controls and exploration were great, it was the story line that made people want to continue playing.

Re:Storylines dont matter??

[trdrstv]

I guess that just demonstrates the strength of the series. We both enjoy it, and keep playing for different reasons, but we both enjoy it, and keep playing.

I have high hopes for Twilight Princess. I hope the wolf mechanics are pretty tight, and I hope if the 'Wii-mote' functions are tightened up from the E3 build (or it offers a 'classic controller' option) since the Wii version will support true 16:9 widescreen and the GC version won't.

Importance of story depends on the game

[bacterial_pus]

I actually was disappointed that WOW didn't have a storyline and quickly lost interst. Call me crazy but collecting items isnt't that fun to me and I've always identified the Warcraft series with a great storyline. I also lost interest in Phoenix Wright on the DS b/c it engage me enough. Most of the time I was just tapping OK. BTW I did play the orignal Diablo to death online..... go figure......

Re:Importance of story depends on the game

[Anonymous Coward]

If you paid any attention, WoW does have multiple story-lines that arc throughout your level progression.

Perhaps you quit too early?

Metroid

[Yvan256]

Metroid games would be kinda dull without a story... I really like the "discover story parts" they've put in the last games. That way, they only need to have a simple introduction at the beginning, and you enter deeper into the story by yourself while playing.

Re:Metroid

[BenjyD]

I think the Metroid method is the right way to do story in games: the story is there to add context to the game, but it doesn't lead the game. You could ignore it completely if you wanted, or you could scan all the logs and follow it in detail.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I never do this, and hate when people reply like this, but that was a great post. Someone mod it up.

Re:For me, yes. See "Marathon" vs. "Doom" and Bung

[Vireo]

Amen to that.

Marathon set the standard for me, too, and that is one of the reasons for which I'm not playing much, these days. Yes, I played a few interesing story-driven games after that, Half-Life probably being the best. But none would have me struggling in order to reach a terminal an actually read the rest of the story, which was in my opinion of SF litterature-grade.

(OK I was a teenager when I was playing Marathon, maybe I just didn't know much about SF litterature at that age; but then again, the Marathon and Halo stories are heavily influenced by SF bestsellers from Iain M. Banks, William Gibson, etc. The Marathon ship itself is very close to a Culture ship, while the struggle between the Leela and Durandal AI are not that far from the one between Wintermute and Necromancer.)

At the same time, the game introduced the grenade jump ("Frog Blast the Vent Core!"), two-triggered weapons, vertical aiming and much more, so it wasn't only story-driven: the action was incredible too.

So... why similar games aren't on the shelf these days? They're not economically feasible anymore? I can enjoy deathmatches alright, it's an entirely different game type, but I'm really longing for a compelling story.

I beg to differ - Xenogears

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that usually good gameplay is necessary to keep most people interested in games. However, there are times when niche markets really control what happens. A good example would be Xenogears.

The gameplay wasnt anything special. It got really bad reviews from most professional reviewers. And it really didnt catch on for a few years. The storyline was wonderful though. Good enough so that when it went out of print, I remember seeing used copies on sell on ebay for $100+. There was enough demand for them to re-release the game to satisfy the need. Eventually, the project got sold to Namco who is now releasing the Xenosaga series (IMHO very much worse than Xenogears) and I suppose they are doing OK with it since they have released 2 games.

Re:I beg to differ - Xenogears

[Sage Gaspar]

Xenogears got a pass for having the first decent storyline with a lot of depth. It also had great music. Otherwise it had lackluster graphics, pretty awful gameplay, and really really boring dungeons.

Stories with games tacked onto them don't really cut it anymore, though. Especially as most gamers get older and don't want to spend 60 hours on what should've been a 40 hour game for a couple hours of plot slowly scrawling itself across the screen.

Of course, Xenosaga failed it mostly because its storyline is completely uncompelling, and any depth attributed to it is a direct result of throwing lots of biblical names around and seeing what sticks.

For a really, really good game...

[26199]

...you need a good story.

Case in point: Deus Ex. Still just about my favourite game ever, and it had a great story. It was like being part of a good cyberpunk novel.

Conversely: Far Cry. The gameplay was good, but the story sucked. It was like taking part in a B movie.

In the end, the games that I'll remember (and go back to play again) are the ones where I can really get into the game world. And that means good characters, a decent plot, and new and interesting things all the way through.

Beyond Good and Evil

[wickning1]

Beyond Good and Evil was a great example of a game where the story made it good. The gameplay was utterly basic but because the world was so vibrant and the story so good, I kept playing to the end and I remember it as one of the more enjoyable games I've played.

Wtf is gameplay anyways?

[Cornflake917]

"Good gameplay can save a game with a terrible story. But a good story can't save a game with terrible gameplay."

What the hell is gameplay, anyways? Everytime there is a slashdot article about what makes a good game or bad. Everyone immediately starts spouting out the obligatory "gameplay is more important than graphics" or "games these days don't have good gameplay like they used too." What does that mean!?!? I'm not disagreeing that gameplay is important, but I'm just stepping back and thinking for a second. To me it could be any aspect of the game, including the plot/story/enviroment.

Re:Wtf is gameplay anyways?

[Das Modell]

I think "gameplay" is a bit like "innovation" because everyone wants it, yet nobody can quite explain what it is or what it's supposed to be. But by God, game developers have to provide it.

A good story can make a game memorable.

[j741]

There are many games which don't need a story. Tetris, Checkers, and so on. But there are many games for which a story helps make it memorable.

Anyone remember "The 7th Guest" or "The 11th Hour"? These were clue based games where each clue you found or each puzzle you solved revealed a little more of the story and helped to refresh the player's desire to continue. And for me, made them unforgettable, clasic games.

Then there was "Grim Fandango". A major departure from the rest of the gaming industry at the time, with a unique approach to an older style of gameplay. The graphics weren't that good, and the gameplay had a bit of occasional awquardness, but the story (and the humor) kept me going back for more. Another great gaming memory that would not be if not for a great story holding it all together.

And more recently, "Hitman: Blood Money". Arguably one of the best of the 'Hitman' series of games. Here's a game where the story has always been somewhat minimal, yet still very important in the developement of the main character. In this newest incarnation, the story gets molded by your style of play and is presented in very interesting newspaper articles between levels of the game. A very good use of a minimal storyline.

How about "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". Sure this is a great game with a wide-open style of play, but would it really be the same without a story to help compell the flow of the game. I loved the way the story kept me going in this wide-open game.

Now we're not talking about pulitzer prize calibler novels here, but game stories do share a common thread with those in books and movies. The story, however it is presented, provides the character developement, mystery, twists, and even much of the environmental ambiance which feed the player's interest in the game.

Stories in FPS are still crappy

[PhakeDC]

It's strange considering FPS has been around for over 15 years, and storyline still isn't incorporated into the (mostly) mindless action. Only a few titles have managed to embed the plot so well into the gameplay. The commercial failure Undying comes to mind, as well as the exceedingly successful Half-Life. Perhaps there is hope after all, but most of the problems associated with the industry are caused by gamers themselves, who repeatedly declined to support original and innovative titles. Else we wouldn't be having these kind of discussions.