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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.

[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.

[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.

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.