Slashdot Mirror
Why Should Game Stories Make Sense?
An anonymous reader writes "An opinion piece at Polygon raises an interesting question about how we perceive video games: why does so much effort go into having the plot make perfect sense? Think about games you've played that have a story. How much do you actually remember? You can probably name the protagonist and antagonist, but do you really know what they were fighting about? The article says, [Developer Jake Elliot] talked about the difference between a puzzle and a mystery. He argued that a puzzle has a solution, while a mystery may never be solved. A puzzle must make sense, but a mystery may well not. In the context of a game, the mechanics are the puzzle, while the theme is the mystery. The game play must be predictable, or the player will never master it. But the theme can be evocative and open-ended. A theme evokes the horrors of war; the mechanics remind you to reload your gun. The plot is stuck in the middle. It wants to make sense of a game, but the game play is already doing that. If we were watching a movie, the plot would provide the backbone, but games don't work like movies, and the plot can get in the way. It can feel awkward and unwelcome, while a looser thematic layer can be the most memorable part of the game.'"
The real plot problem is that not enough effort goes into game plot development.
Its not so bad as long as you can keep the fear from your mind.
Not!
Find the melon you want to eat which someone has taken from you!
http://store.steampowered.com/...
Good story! :D Such deep!
They don't need to make sense in a universal fashion, they can be completely unrealistic/unbelievable. However they should make sense internally. Whatever rules are laid out in the game universe, it should make sense within that setting.
Most people can easily suspend disbelief and accept another world. However that suspension can be shattered if nothing makes sense, the rules keep changing, and there's no internal consistency.
That was, for example, one of the big problems in the Mass Effect games. I won't go in to details to not spoil it but the ending of the trilogy was bad in a large part because it had no internal consistency. It didn't make sense in regards to the narrative that had been going on in the games up to that point. It was a deus ex machinia kind of event that just shattered the story for many.
So no game stories don't need to make sense in terms of the real world, but if they are to be good they should make sense in terms of themselves.
Without immersion a game usually is less fun. Being sucked into the game is the experience many players are looking for. And story holes throw you right out of it, they are the ultimate immersion-killers.
Is not a reputable source at all. The entire site is based on click baiting articles and opinion pieces.
Are mystery and puzzle, sure, but if the game has to have both plot and gameplay, you should ensure they work together well. The rules don't have to follow rules of the universe we are in, but they have to make sense to the story.
Also, I am pretty sure that if your game is going to have some realistic elements, like people, players probably demand a certain level of realism in your story as well as gameplay to feel comfortable playing it.
Is not a reputable source at all. The entire site is based on click baiting articles and opinion pieces.
You're new here, I take it.
This was what was so great about Lost. There were so many mysteries, yet every time a mystery was solved, it just raised yet more questions. Many viewers still didn't get it by the time the finale was long over. A game where you're always in medias res and constantly being surprised by new revelations could be even more fantastic! Come to think of it, that's what makes life so cool.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Not every game needs one.
Think about games you've played that have a story. How much do you actually remember? You can probably name the protagonist and antagonist, but do you really know what they were fighting about?
Yes? I consider myself to have below average memory for plots and characters in stories in general, including books and movies, yet I can remember more than two characters from most stories, video game or not, that I've paid any attention to in the last 10+ years. Even stuff I was exposed to before that in high school I could at least give a quick paragraph summary. What if someone said:
Think about fiction books you've read. How much do you actually remember? You can probably name the protagonist and antagonist, but do you really know what they were doing?
Just because you and some other people have bad memory or don't pay attention doesn't mean such things can be ignored. Hell, even if you have bad long term memory, doesn't mean you don't notice when you are in the middle of playing or reading the particular work.
Deus Ex. System Shock 2. The Witcher. Baldur's Gate. Planescape Torment. I'm ready to forgive Digger (c) Windmill Software, 1983, Tetris and Tapper for having no decent plot, though.
In the games that were AWESOME, I do. And you know what made those games awesome in my opinion? Internally consistent plots (along with good gameplay).
Simple question, simple answer. Games are about satisfying desires. Whether that means the satisfaction of overcoming challenges or the satisfaction of bringing a story to a fitting conclusion doesn't matter. If the story didn't make sense it wouldn't be satisfying, and so the satisfaction would have to come from some other element. If the game failed to be satisfying in that aspect as well it would be bad and no-one would play it.
The Marathon story (scroll down the menu on the left) made the game much more enjoyable.
Portal / Portal 2 : Great games with both fantastic gameplay AND brilliant writing.
Think about games you've played that have a story. How much do you actually remember?
All of it if the story was great. Even if the gameplay was just OK, sometimes worth it to advance the story.
If the story was bad, none of it - or the game.
If the story was REALLY bad, all of it plus I seethe with rage forever.
I also do remember some games with zero story quite well - I think the thing with story is, there's a kind of narrative uncanny valley. You have to go all in on having a story, or don't bother.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the story didn't make sense it wouldn't be satisfying
It wouldn't be satisfying to who? That doesn't apply to everyone.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
All of them had awesome stories. Fallout 3 changed after the first DLC, but the latest 2 GTAs and their DLC have had absolutely awesome stories, even if I don't like the fact that letting Trevor live was an option in GTA V :)
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
How is that relevant to anything I said? Nothing applies to everyone, outside of the categories of biology.
What makes something "a mystery" isn't the fact that it doesn't make sense, it's the fact that it doesn't deliver a definitive answer.
Far too many TV shows and "beach thrillers" rely on nonsense to move the plot along (internal contradictions, characters acting completely out of character and against their own interests to make some plot twist possible, deus ex machina "solutions" to holes the script writers dug themselves into, etc.).
And, sadly, game writers tend to be recruited from, those ranks (i.e., people used to linear writing), which removes the only thing they might be good at (control over the story's flow). In a non-linear medium like a game (and even more so in shared-world multiplayer games, like MMORPGs), the result is frequently cringe-worthy. All the plot holes and nonsense stand out, and makes you wish the game didn't try to have a "story" at all.
So yes, game stories (like every other story) do need to "make sense", regardless of any mysteries. And they need to make sense not just in terms of the plot itself, but also in terms of the game universe, player actions, and interaction between players. If you can't write a story that makes sense, don't write a story at all, just create an interesting game world and let the players make up their own stories.
Game writers need to be more like J.R.R. Tolkien and less like Dan Brown / J. J. Abrams.
How is that relevant to anything I said?
Because I replied to something you said?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If the story draws me in, I'll enjoy it, and be more inclined to try more titles by the same publisher. If it has plot holes, I'll stop enjoying it, and avoid that publisher. Same thing applies to movies and TV shows.
Anyone who remembers Half Life would probably understand the importance of a story within a game.
...real somehow. I wish games where that awesome, but somehow...the sequels plus a lot of other games have failed to pick up where Half Life left of, but I personally feel THIS IS THE WAY TO GO!
Before Half Life, I played 2D console games like Pac-Man, Asteroids, Space-Invaders and other today classics, followed by 3D games like Wolfenstein, DOOM, The QUAKE series etc... no one of them had any decent stories IMHO. Then Half Life came along, it was a milestone in video gaming. Video games and actual VIDEO now merged into one, and games never felt this immerse and exciting. I remember literally jumping in my chair when the onslaught of surprises came to life in that game.
When introduced as a worker in the Black Mesa research facility - I actually FELT like I was really working there, just to face a day out of the ordinary. We could walk around and "sort of" talk to people, and it felt
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
If replying to something signified relevance, the world would be ruled by youtube comments.
It was relevant. If you wanted to state it as your own opinion, I think you should've done so.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I think that the Silent Hill games (at least 1-4) do a fantastic job of having strong themes and plot but still leaving a lot open to perceptual conjecture on the part of the player.
My mother, a gamer and professional writer, put video games and the importance of their story in a very beautifully put way:
A video game is like a book with an exotic method of turning the pages. I would never buy a blank book for the sake of turning some pages and I would never buy a storyless video game for the sake of grinding some baddies.
The only great thing about Lost was that it was (mostly) well executed from a technical point of view (acting, editing, direction, etc.). The "plot" was a complete mess and it was obvious, even in season 1, that the writers didn't really have a clue where they were going. Trying to stretch it out to increase their profits pushed it from "lost the plot" to "lost any sense of shame".
Lost could have been great; the first three or four episodes are quite good, and the premise is excellent. Unfortunately, after that, it's the typical "characters acting inexplicably out of character for 5 minutes to make some plot twist possible" and "deus ex machina solution to some plot hole the writers dug themselves into" fare.
And that's ultimately what distinguishes great writers and great works of fiction from fleeting mass-consumption fads. Some things make sense and have a message (regardless of having an explicit conclusion), others are just a sequence of visually impressive (but ultimately disconnected and meaningless) scenes to impress viewers with a short attention span.
I'm not saying Lost is as bad as (for example) Fringe, but story development is definitely not its strong point, on the contrary.
Ultima 4, 5, 6, 7, 7-2 (even the bad one 8,9), I remember the protagonists background and motivation. Heck Planescape torment, who can even forget that ? "What can change the nature of Man ?". I disagree that the story is not important. The story as a motivation well done IS important. The problem is that since the game are sold globally now, and the cultural difference between market are so huge, it is increasingly difficult to come up with a story sensitive to all cultures.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I wrote "If the story didn't make sense it wouldn't be satisfying." I think you misinterpreted what 'it' referred to, which was the story, not the game. "A game that does not have a story is unsatisfying" is an opinion. "A story that doesn't make sense is unsatisfying" is a tautology, unless you find satisfaction in irrationality, in which case you are insane.
I strong disagree with the author on a few points. First, the games which really stuck with me over the years (and kept me coming back to play them again) often had great stories (which I remember in detail, thank you very much). Portal, the Quest for Glory series, Legends of Valour, Neverwinter Nights -- just to name a few -- had great stories and good game play. These things are not at all exclusive.
A game needs to have good controls, good mechanics, sure, but the game is much richer and much more likely to pull me in if it has a good story. Why would I keep playing if I do not have the motivation of a story to keep me interested?
Halflife and it's related properties HL2, Portal, Portal 2 have a very sense-making plot.
So do all the Mario games.
Ultima games were very good about letting the user explore without being beholden to the plot, though some of it was time-dependent. On the flip side of this were the StarFlight and Starflight 2 games which told the story through the notices, but otherwise the story was what you were making out of it.
The games that kinda screw things up are those that disregard everything you've done so far. Sonic games do this. Most FPS games tend to do this (bigger, larger, harder bigbad than the last), The Final Fantasy games are a hit and miss. FF 4/5/6 had the best mix of storytelling and exploration while 7/8/9 was more like "railRPG" (eg like a rail shooter, but RPG, you're not allowed to explore except to grind), Then FFX/X-2 and FFXIII completely take the exploration away, and everything becomes more of a series of random battles just go from point X to point Y through a map, just like in FF7.
My point at least is that games like Oblivion/Skyrim, Fallout 3, you had the world to explore, but none of the push to do it. You were just handed quests like candy, none of the characters are important other than you. You could outright murder everyone you see fullstop and the game should become unwinnable, but it doesn't. The game ends when you feel you've had enough of it. Comparatively to Mass Effect (and Dragon age I guess, I found dragon age way too damn boring to get into) all the "your party" characters have personalities, and all the locations have interactive characters that you can easily go back and and converse with. They aren't just a quest checkbox.
But I digress.
The games I liked the best to play were games that let me look in every box (like Ultima 6+ and Oblivion), pickup or steal everything not nailed down (Ultima, Oblivion, Starflight), Buy or sell everything picked up, and not just as trash value (I'll add "Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale" to that list, because it's ultimately an RPG game but only has a goal of selling all the crap they picked up to get out of debt, an aspect that is common to Animal Crossing) But these games ultimately didn't have that engaging of story and I can't even tell you what the story is for any of these games other than what the final goal was.
Like when it comes down to it, a game like Remember Me, or Mirror's Edge is more compelling based on the game mechanics introduced by those games, but sometimes those game mechanics are frustrating enough to not want to keep playing for more than an hour because it feels less like a storyline game and more like a series of button memorizing to repeat until the current enemy is defeated. This is ultimately why FF games after FF6 are more frustrating. They pushed the game into more storytelling at the expense of freedom to actually discover things.
Are there games that have a storyline that aren't hobbled by their gameplay? Not many. Mainly what I want in a game is to find the story by doing things, not have the story spoon-fed to me as a reward for killing the last big-bad and moving onto the next quest on the map or in a list. Like Mass Effect did one thing right by this, and didn't force the player to do everything in a specific order. At the same time though, the conversational elements had little outcome on the game other than who lived or died and what ending you got, they did nothing to change the difficulty or outcome of a specific stage. I found Mass Effect's storyline about as engaging as Halflife 2's but found that Valve is still better at balancing game mechanics with storytelling.
A substantial amount of people get annoyed by things that don't make sense, especially in America. That's why you don't see a lot of In media res in films, and why we keep getting Spider Man/Batman/Superman's Origin story over and over and over again. As for why media caters to these folks, well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are fewer people annoyed by bluntly laid out stories than get annoyed by obtuse storytelling.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"A story that doesn't make sense is unsatisfying" is a tautology
It's a statement of fact. "A story that doesn't make sense is unsatisfying to me" would be an opinion.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Polygon raises an interesting point: I don't remember much about the plots in the computer/video games.
I'm not trying to bash the games but the plot twists are kinda complex and hard to follow sometimes.
I'm trying to remember the plot of the Norn starting zone in Guild Wars 2. The bounty hunter is on a great hunt in Star Wars: the old Republic. Trooper in SWTOR: Um... something about Justicars and helping people... don't remember much. Nice graphics and voice acting.
World of Warcraft: I made it into the Outlands. Story isn't too bad. I'm helping the Cenarion in Zangarmarsh do something or rather against the bog monsters.
I got lost in Rift regarding the plot. Something about Regulos and an ascendant.
Diablo 3 is actually easy to follow. At least the plot in D3 makes more sense to me than in other games Let me rescue Uncle Dekard, the find a sword, then talk help an angel, then find Maghda.. then become annoyed when the scoundrel flirts with my female characters. lol
Dragon Quest 8: let me find a jester while meeting a templar knight and a wizard from an aristocratic family. plot is kinda Simple but the journey is long. Wow. I'm at the next continent helping the young prince Charmless on his hunting trip.
Don't get me started with Final Fantasy 8 and the orphans.. and the Ultimecia. Only thing I really liked about the game was going back in time with Laguna. The puzzles are decent too. press triangle, circle, square to do stuff that I forgot.
Neverwinter and Dungeons and Dragons online are simple too and easy to follow. I have to get used to blocking. Other games that I play block enemies' attacks automatically. I like the idea of campfires too.
Ok, that is a long list. But you get the point.
Did anyone even remember anyone but Gandalf and Sauron in Lord of the Rings, before the movies? Seriously, the Eagles could have fixed everything in Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, so why did those novels even exist? And why should stories even make sense, when they're meant as escapism? They're always stuck in the middle of their respective universes. Far easier to just not give a shit, after all we're only reading novels because we like to flip pages and decode those funny squiggles in ink, not to be emotionally invested in them.
Art = creative story-telling
Puzzle = interacting with stories being told
Game = competing by writing your own stories (in a structured/rules-based environment)
Story = an account of things that happen created and stored inside (a person's) memory (bank (see: account)).
'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
If they continue that, they will eventually reach the level of TV. That one I have up a decade ago, because I could not stand the stupidity any more.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I generally have the most fun in games with no plot at all and they tend to have more replay value.
Not to say that there aren't any fun games with plots...
Look things don't have to be real. You can invent devices, forces and technologies which don't exist or are otherwise unexplainable in the real world. Boxes of holding, fluid routers, transwarp drives, the force, transporters, Sindel's hair.. Have at it sky is the limit.
What really spoils a story is getting salient to plot items so wrong the whole story becomes impossible for anyone to believe.
Nuclear power plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb (resident evil) nobody with rudimentary high school level understanding would buy such ridiculous cover stories.
While Gravity may have taken artistic license and there were no shortage of people nitpicking subtle mundane issues... I could care less. Yet I found myself upset when Bullock let go of Clooney .. because it made no sense at all.. a main character just dies for no reason cause they forget there is no "gravity" when orbiting earth ... spoiled the whole rest of the movie.
I'm not quite sure what the argument that's being made here is.
Games are an audio/visual medium that involves user interaction, there are many paths to take from that point and many of them may harken back to media that came before.
Some people may enjoy more the challenge of the mechanics, or the challenge of playing against other people, or art style, or the story, or the general ambiance.
So it seems to me that it's a rather limited way of thinking to try to make some sort of sweeping statement about what games should and shouldn't be.
They should make sense because I like stories that make sense, and I buy video games with stories I like.
You can have an entertaining game without any plot or with extremely little (eg. Super Mario Bros.), but a plot that actually doesn't make sense is going to bother me exactly as much as a movie that doesn't make sense, and the fact that "games don't work like movies" is an additional obstacle to writing a coherent plot, not an excuse for not trying.
I also suggest that he's probably talking to people who don't care about plots. The plot is the main thing I remember from most games. I can absolutely tell you what the characters were fighting about in any of my favourite games. I can list sideplots. I can't necessarily tell you what buttons you press to do certain actions.
I also suggest that the "looser thematic layer" is important to movies, too. The Matrix didn't get by on the strength of its plot, and the early "twist" that they were all living in a computer simulation was absolutely not novel. But it had a strong themes and, at the time, a unique artistic stance that is often summarized with reference to "bullet time". How many people remember why Neo went to see the Oracle?
Adventure games are nearly all plot. A strong subset of RPGs are like that too -- the Elder Scrolls games not so much, they are about theme, and I don't like those games and they bug me at every release by overshadowing all the RPGs I like. The Infinity Engine games had better plots, but not necessarily strong themes, although Planescape had both and is well-loved. The original Fallout also had strong theme & plot elements, but it strayed further into theme and away from plot as time went on, culminating in Fallout 3 (New Vegas backtracked a bit, to my delight).
Mass Effect tried for both too, and with the controversy over the ending you can absolutely see how important plot truly was.
I kept waiting for the reveal of the Plan the Cylons supposedly had.
Many movies don't have a meaningful plot --- as Alfred Hitchcock called it, a common practice is begin a movie with a "McGuffin".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin
The McGuffin is something that begins a quest or series of events but ultimately doesn't mean anything. An example, is a quest to find the Holy Grail or to find the Maltese Falcon or James Bond needing to find a device stolen that can [insert what it does] or Bob owes a loan shark $5000.
Video game plots generally don't help the video game, some of the outstanding games tend to be the very few that do (and some of the very few that have about no plot).
But the point is, many movies only have a superficial plot.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Wow, engineer must mean "train throttle puller" in this case. There sure as hell isn't any indication of the logic that a builder / designer type engineer should exhibit.
It is quite obvious that " if the story didn't make sense it wouldn't be satisfying" refers to the previous sentence, particularly the last subject matter of the previous sentence having to do with the satisfaction of bringing a story to a fitting conclusion. It is further supported by the next portion of the sentence stating that "if that wasn't the aim there would have to be something else to provide satisfaction."
Furthermore, nothing, and I mean nothing past base biological necessities, applies to "everyone". The target in this, as well as nearly all arguments like it, target the majority. In arguments like these no one cares about the few individuals out on the fringe.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
The summary poses the rhetorical question: How much do I actually remember [of the story]? The implication is that a) games contain such simple or unimportant stories as to be unmemorable or b) gamers themselves don't care about stories and don't pay any attention to them. Each implication is wrong. In fact, one could argue it's a strawman which forms the excuse for having written the rest of the article, in lieu of having something useful to say.
My favourite game of all time is Star Control II. It is a story-driven space adventure game that just happens to be the most amazingly written story in any game I've experienced. How much do I actually remember? I remember all of it. I played it countless times. I can summon the theme music to each of the alien races into my head instantly. I remember the motivations of each of the races, and how those motivations change as the story develops. I still play it from time to time (as The Ur-Quan Masters). I will fondly remember this game until the day I die; if I'm lucky, that will be one of the last things I do.
Why does so much effort go into making sure the plot makes sense? The answer is demonstrated perfectly by Star Control II. If the plot didn't make sense the game just wouldn't work. Pew pew lasers and visiting planets only gets you so far. For some games that's all you need, but for the type of game that Star Control II is it would just never work without a well-written story. The story characters have their motivations, but the gamer themselves must also have some motivation to move their part in the story along too. There are literally thousands of planets to visit, but no gamer is going to go and visit them without some of their own motivation.
It's obvious that a great deal of time and attention was put into the story for Star Control II, and it is now considered one of the best computer games ever made. That is why you put the effort in.
It's "obvious"? To who? I've seen numerous people who think that their opinions about subjective matters are objectively correct, so if you don't state something as an opinion, there's no real way to know which type of person you are.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Think about games you've played that have a story. How much do you actually remember?
Think of all the good things that happened to you today. Think hard. Did you have a nice breakfast? Good coffee? Was today's slashdot session pleasing? Most of these events are forgettable unless they are spectacular in some way.
Now think of all the bad things that have happened in your life. Easy isn't it? We remember the spectacular.
I don't remember much of Half-Life. All I remember is that it had quite a good story.
I remember quite a bit of Bioshock Infinite, probably because it had a good story and I played it recently.
I won't ever forget the colossal screw-up which was the ending to the Mass Effect Trilogy. Inconsistent, nonsensical, and despite everything it looks like every option doomed the universe when you think about it. Who the heck was that kid? Why was he brought in just to finish the story, it didn't make any sense at all.
Games don't need a story. If they have a story they don't need a good story either. If however you're going to have a story it better at least make sense or people will definitely remember it, and not positively.
If its nothing but a shoot-em-up bit of fluff then story can be 'lite' and few details need to be presented, simplifying the game dev work needed to make the "reasons" cohesive. Consistency would still be good so players are distracted from the primary activity - slaughtering things without it being 'evil'.
If players are asked to do things in a more complex game, then the reasons to do those should be explained enough to be logical. If decisions are to be made, then the player should be able to decide what is the 'right' for their role and should be given sufficient correct/cohesive/consistent information. The player shouldnt be stuck scratching their heads trying to figure out why they just got zapped for doing the 'right' thing.
If part of the game is to 'discover', then the correct information has to be there for them to find
If the game has a well defined setting - WW2/Middle Earth/Modern World then it should be portrayed properly toi match those settings - Tiger Tanks shouldnt fly, Gandalf shouldnt be a clone of Mr T, and Terrorists shouldnt be 'warm and fuzzy'.
Though I did not play it for 20 years, I perfectly recall Gradius plot that was in the booklet: "you must destroy the Korg empire" (nothing more!)
I am trying hard to not just laugh out loud at the whole idea of a video game not needing a plot. There are a few games that don't.... puzzle games. However, the entire point of 99% of video games is that you are doing something you normally can't do. Adventure, action, simulator, what have you.... take a space sim for instance...If you made a space sim with no plot, where you just fly around from star system to star system, it's interesting for sure. But there's no driver... no purpose to it.
Games without purpose are in the same bunch with games without risk or scarcity ( All of the "clickity click" Zynga games for instance ) They have a small amount of pleasure derived from their basic idea... there is something interesting to them. However that quickly fades
I literally do not understand why anyone would argue with you.
I mean, look at your sig. You're obviously a pedantic little twat, and talking to you is a waste of time.
Generally speaking, video game writing is notoriously bad and is often completely divorced from the gameplay.
And you know what, the audience just doesn't care! you want proof? Just look at Bethesda, Fallout 3 is one of the worst games I've ever played, especially in regards to writing, but it's immensely popular, heir audience loves it, often citing the writing, and they've ever won awards for it.
Even when there are companies like Atlus and Obsidian that can do excellent video game writing, the audience that desires good writing is quite niche.
As for what makes a good video game narrative, it varies from genre to genre, but in principle it should complement the gameplay; eg, no allies dying when there's easy and wide access to healing/resurrection magic; should probably be non-linear; like how the plot and games changes wildly in Arcanum based on your actions and choices; and it should be used extensively in world building, often by showing and not telling. Making a town that actually looks inhabitable and sustainable is actually a massive part of it. Fallout 3 is an excellent example of how not to do it: make nothing, trade nothing, grow nothing, build a town around an atomic bomb because SO COOL AND WHACKY!
JRPGs have similar issues, schlock like modern final fantasy and bravely default for example have a linear narrative completely divorced from the gameplay, and even go so far as to repeatedly club you over the head with whatever point they're trying to make just so they can be sure you get it. Dragon Quest 8 as also quite horrible, with the entire plot past the 5 hour marker being easily avoidable were it not for cutscene paralysis - and I'm still pissed off that the party couldn't escape a jail cell with a simple locked door when they had the ULTIMATE KEY that can unlock anything and everything. The list just goes on.
But they also have games with quite good writing, just like we do; We have stuff like Fallout new Vegas, they have stuff like Shin Megami Tensei.
There's plot and there's lore.
The plot is not that important really. I'm moving through the game creating a story of my own, and that guy with a script - I don't want to see him that often. Really, it's a story about me travelling through the game world told to me travelling through the game world. It is redundant.
But there's also the lore, and the lore is important. The lore contains lots of stories. And this is what I remember after the game. Because I discovered it. These stories were relevant to my journey, and they weren't redundant.
So if you want to make a good game - pump in tons of lore, but don't nag the player too much with your vision on what's happening.
It's not a particularly interesting question, either.
And you know what made those games awesome in my opinion? Internally consistent plots (along with good gameplay).
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The manual tells you what they want you to think. It's a cover-up.
Tetris Worlds has a plot: block creatures trying to escape their dying planet through portals unlocked by high scores in Tetris. Too bad The Tetris Company had to screw it up by using Tetris Worlds to launch infinite spin as a new official rule of Tetris.
President Ronnie has been kidnapped by the ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue Ronnie?
... it's about setting the tone for a story and then radically breaking from it. We saw this in mass effect 3's ending and Mass effect 2's ret-conning. ME3's ending was just fucking awful for all the amazing shit they set up in Mass effect 1. The reapers had a real mystery and atmosphere and that was slowly deflated by mistakes made in ME2 (aka the human abuction to create a human reaper, like wtf?) and then totally screwed over by ME3 with star child stupid ass choice ending.
If a game gives gamers the impression of being a serious story they set up those expectations. No one playing say Saints row 3 or SR4 is going to have serious expectations about the story. But it's different for RPG's like mass effect, etc. When you give the story a serious tone and show serious effort and then start phoning it in that's when gamers get pissed off. You need to decide from the start whether your story is going to be a serious effort or a half assed one and don't give gamers the impression otherwise.
Are you seriously trying to say that nonsense stories can be satisfying? Because I cannot think of any examples where that's true.
The reason lyrics, poems, stand-up comedians, movies, games, and all other cultural works need to make sense is because they exist within the cultural context. One may not remember the precise details after they have occurred, but that is not the significant interval of engagement. Reexperiencing the games will quickly bring to mind the nuances events encountered prior, else no one would ever beat Mega Man. Many creators and especially game designers do not understand the true height of the shoulders they are standing upon. However, I do. I have tried creating things that are both meaningful and completely original... They have no cultural significance because they are too removed from it. You would sooner find meaning in television static (it being a universal symbolism, after all).
Try creating a wholly original and meaningful work: You actually can't due to biological factors that will limit the forms of acceptable I/O. To name a few: Gamma Ray Videos will give you radiation poisoning and cancer; Ultra Sonic Audio won't be audible, and very low frequencies make humans loose their shit; Your event ordering will be more temporally consistent the smaller the interval (you may have time loops or backwards or unordered scenes, but pressing a button will cause an action to occur afterwards in a non random fashion, and no input devices will transmit data to the past); Visual, audible, and temporal aesthetics will be dependent upon the human visual, audible and cognitive subsystems, e.g., sharp angular contrasts and movements will draw focus, smoother and subtler differentiations will invite deeper investigation, and the gradient patterns thereof will repeat in a fractal "arch" pacing (even in storytelling) due to neuron activation potentials and "rest" periods where the neurotransmitters must be cleared from the synapse prior to reactivation; Juxtaposition of a common (but false) assumption with ridiculous (but true) actuality triggers the humor circuit more strongly the more unexpected, longer duration, and interdependent with other juxtapositions and ridiculous assumptions.
Aside from the universal and biological biases, social factors of consensus will weigh heavily on the cultural value of the creation. Minor deviations excepted, your physics will be derived from interactions found in your natural environment, the dialog will be in an existing language (or provide duplex information conveyance via translation stream), iconography will be derived from common cultural symbols. To increase value by way of cultural relevance the narrative will frequently involve allusion to preexisting events, stories, myths, legends and religions.
New creations exist atop mountains of prior creations, and yet you foolishly limit recreation from existing sources to arbitrary delays of duration -- Even greater than a span of life! Four generations do copyright last: If you have kids at 30, then die at 70, your kids die 30 years after your death, your grandkids die 60 years after your death and your great grand children will be 50 when new creations enjoyed by your generation finally enter full legal cultural availability (70 years after your death) ensuring that the works are culturally irrelevant to new creations. If I wanted to stagnate human cultural evolution, your current copyright laws are exactly the way I would do so... You are now aware that "national security" means maintaining the social, political and economical status quo even against the will of the people. No one will be alive to remember the creations of the past, so the immortal corporations will finally have a means to seemingly create "new" things themselves via regurgitation of their prior digestions... but I digress.
Even having invented a truly alien language, easy for both machines and organics to OCR, with 16 glyphs based on the universal dimensional, temporal, and energetic forces of interaction and an thus easily interpretable by mechanoids and organics alike via recur
Whoops, I didn't realize I was talking to a caricature of a fundamentalist Christian instead of a real person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The newest iteration in the Thief franchise is an example of how NOT to use plots in a video game. It takes you from very loosely linked missions, and then at the end of the game, leaves so many questions unanswered and so much ambiguity that it is actually anticlimatic, and and least left me determined to not play any more episodes, at least not if they keep the development team involved. For instance, after you complete the last mission and allegedly fix the malaise that has been affecting the city, if you continue to play, there are still the "zombified" NPCs visible throughout the game. Major fail.
It's like the difference between erotic art and pornography; erotic art tries to make you think and feel on your own, whereas pornography just want you to say bye-bye to your money. I suppose there are so many forms of 'porn' out there because the world is full of wankers.
I can enjoy the simple, unthinking gameplay sometimes, but a good story is what makes me want to come back for more.
That's your opinion.
A few examples of good stories:
* Half-Life does not have a really complicated story, but it's good enough to turn mindless running around corridors (Quake II-style) into achieving actual goals.
* Bioshock Infinite has an insanely great story with an awesome ending. Forget the graphics (not bad at all), forget the gameplay (also quite entertaining), the story is probably the best in history of gaming. This game will definitely be remembered.
And bad ones:
* Unreal II: The Awakening has a terrible story and dialogue. But graphics were great and gameplay was OK (typical for FPS developed during that time). Probably nobody remembers this game now (except for how bad the dialogue was).
* Unreal Tournament, Quake III have absolutely no story in single-player. It seems nobody played single-player at all, or only used it to train for multi-player deathmatches.
Some gameplay types do not need a story, and sadly it seems that this includes most modern games, such as free-to-play timekillers (no need for a story when the purpose is grinding for coins) and multiplayer games where the any sort of story interferes with the gameplay.
For a while at least. I do remember, Monkey Islands was awesome, yet I don't remember a lot of the plot anymore, except for the revealing ending in Monkey Island 2.
Theres arcade games like hoops around a cone, but for games that require me to invest more than the few minutes of screentime i give them, i need something to help me keep the suspension of belief. This is where a story that keeps me interested is required.
But there are exceptions. The story may be cheesy, like C&C:Red Alert 2 where its just mechanism to explain the next mission. So either the story is informative, or the story is required to keep me interested.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
The plot needs to make sense at some level, first of all. Otherwise I'm just not going to give a shit. Does this mean it needs to challenge my ideas on (blank) or attempt to (yadda)? No. If you make it like every horror movie where people act in a completely retarded way, weather or not they've ever seen a horror movie if freaky random ghostly shit starts happening you GTFO after a few times. It just needs to make sense. Even if you KNOW it's a bad idea, but you HAVE to do it because a reasonable reason, that's okay. Hell, I trotted after Sephiroth because all the characters were like "If S-Dawg be doin' stuff, we in deep shit!" and just about the time I got tired of that, the characters ruminate on how he MURDERED people and burnt down villages and went frikkin' CRAZY. So, yeah, it made sense we should try and stop him, then this seed grew into a sapling and eventually became a massive redwood tree which would sound sketchy as a story when summed up but every step of the way made sense. That's all a plot needs to hold up: small steps that make sense, leading to a conclusion.
A story? You need characters for that. I don't mean this is "blah" he is like "yada". That's a caricature at best. They need thoughts, feelings, things to do, quirks. Any halfway decent GM can tell you that the difference between "the bartender." and "That's MISTER M.F. Bartender, esq. to YOU!" can be as simple as kicking some street punks out of the bar, then eyeing down the PCs like they could be next if they misbehave. The difference between "manic evil dude." and "Are you MAD Villain, bro? wtf?! SRSLY?!" is, instead of "You'll nevar catch ME! *poof*" he turns to the PCs and says "Well. This has been fun, but now you've gone and made me late. *frown*" then, suddenly, he just shoots one of the PCs in the leg "Tootaloos~! (to self while walking of) Mental Note: Yes, that meeting with... John, was it? Yes. Move that to tomorrow. I've an underling that's failed me, one of those "getters" that just isn't going -- needs his kneecaps busted, I think. Yes... I'll hold... *manic laughter he cuts short then shoots someone else* What, thought I lost it? No such luck."
This is what separates the memorable moments in gaming from the filler. Character. We didn't care that Aeris died because she was the healer or because "plot twist! SOMEONE DIES!!". It broke our hearts because we CARED. You had her nurture the group, share her fears, her past, gave her a story and personality and then BAM. GONE.
The words "Would you kindly?" stick with me not because "plot twist! MIND CONTROL!" but because we think our plane crashed, we have no direction, then this guy with a propensity for being polite shows up, guides us, gets in trouble, we try to help etc. etc. and then, suddenly, everything that made us sympathize with the character is stripped away and the very quirk which provided some level of endearment is brandished against us.
When I think of Gothic, I remember "Welcome to the colony! *punch to the face*" not because it's the first line of note in the game, but because it gives the entire setting of Gothic a character itself. "Wizards, magic spell gone wrong, prisoners take over, orcs are trapped in here too because of a war going on, blah blah blah, yeah, yeah 'only I can prevent forest fires!' figured as much... wait... 'but he had a ways to go before that'... well yeah I'm level one... Oh... you... uh... really meant that. Wow. Okay. Well... that chicken thing don't look too--- OH GOD MY CHARACTER DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SWORD!!! BALD CHICKENS TERRIFYING!!!!" Even though the majority of characters are not even "real characters" they FEEL like it, because the world has made it painstakingly clear that although you're used to being special in a video game, you have to earn it. The "I'm a prison A-hole" vibe everyone oozes works because from the get go you KNOW what kind of place you're in and that you really need to invest in some friends, and soap on a rope, quick.
Even Borderlands 2 gets this right. Jack has got personality. Mar
As I'm an arcade gamer, and growth in the 8 and 16 bits era, for me, games are not an alternative reality. Games for fun only. And most remarkable games are the ones with generic stories: let's fight against Mr. X, that bad group has kidnapped my girlfriend, bad aliens will destroy our Universe. I even remember when I rent the TMNT games, on Genesis, for the first time, and my brothers asked me to skip the intro, because they want just play. But yeap, time changed, and now EVERY GAMES IN THE UNIVERSE have to present an epic story. Have to be long and easy. For God sake, at least the indie market is offering better alternatives then "THE INDUSTRY".
A story is a series of events recorded in their chronological order.
A plot is a series of events deliberately arranged so as to reveal their dramatic, thematic, and emotional significance.
The "deliberately arranged" bit is the important part.
In a book or a play it's the old three or four or five act structure, which makes sure that you get all the information you need where and when you need it and which keeps the story interesting.
You know... It makes sure that the detective finds the killer in the end, after finding all the clues if it is a mystery or that he finds the killer in the beginning then showing us how he kept missing the clues if it is a drama or a satire.
Or, put in another way, plot is what moves the story from A to Z, story is how the letters in between A and Z are arranged.
Why from A to Z? Why not A to M? Because "'at is them rulez".
In a game, the rules of the game are its plot.
In chess, the fact that each game starts the same way and has the same goal is what sets the plot of chess.
The story in chess is all that which happens on the board. Openings, tactics, moves... that's the story.
The players create the story.
And even there, bits of plot are hidden - as there are strict rules how each figure moves and attacks.
You ever had a game of chess where the entire court turns on the king, makes the pact with the other side and betrays him?
How about one where two pawns from opposing sides fall in love and decide to run away together?
You want a different plot with chess? Try chess problems.
Though, I'm not sure there is one that tries to reenact Romeo and Juliet.
As for 2048... That is a VERY bad example. That game is almost exclusively plot.
A really big hint would be the fact that almost immediately people started coming up with algorithms to beat the game.
If a bot can complete the game, moving from A to Z, or from 2 to 2048 - that's a plot-driven game.
Put a SINGLE black-or-white, good-or-bad choice - and the bot will fail half the time.
If you're using 2048 as an example of a good game, you are actually asking for games that are entirely scripted, but with a steep learning curve and little to no random elements.
Those are not games. Those are mathematical problems.
Sure... some people find those fun, but eventually they do become just tedious number crunching.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
What a load of incoherent nonsense.
Reading OP and the linked article was really annoying to me. A bunch of poorly explained notions and full of conjectural statements.
> Think about games you've played that have a story. How much do you actually remember?
Quite a bit, typically.
> You can probably name the protagonist and antagonist, but do you really know what they were fighting about
Actually, I rarely remember the names, while the backstory is trivial to recall.
Consider Marathon.
Microsoft Studios' user research group developed a narrative usability method to test story early in production, allowing for iteration driven by player experience. Narrative usability can identify twists that don't work and conclusions that are confusing, removing understanding blockers so that characters can shine.
Having played a number of FPS games, you know the one I remember the most? Spec Ops: The Line. Why? The plot and voice acting.
Having played a number of flight sim games, you know the one I remember the most? Wing Commander 3. Why? The plot and acting.
Having played a number of indie games, you know the one I remember the most? To the Moon. Why? The plot and dialogue.
Having played a number of adventure games, you know the one I remember the most? Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Why? The plot.
Having played a number of puzzle games, you know the one I remember the most? Deus Ex. Why? The plot and depth of gameplay.
Having played a number of sci-fi games, you know the one I remember the most? Half-Life 2. Why? The plot and voice acting.
RPG games take their own special category as plot makes or breaks an RPG - Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 9 + 13, Mass Effect 3, etc.
I may not remember the plot, but I certainly remember how I felt at the end of the game. Same as with other forms of entertainment - movies, books, theatrical performances, etc. Glad to see they are offering research to make a game more memorable because of the plot and characters.
I couldn't describe to you each individual plot point in a book I read last year. Whether you can remember every little tidbit of dialogue years later isn't important. While I'm playing, though, the plot line is right there in front of me, and all the previous bits and pieces are at the front of my mind. You throw in something that doesn't mesh with the plot in the least bit (i.e. Portal robot spheres in Skyrim, the talking dog in Skyrim, various other easter eggs in other games), that kicks me out of the game, and I don't want to continue playing. That's why keeping the story consistent is important, you dimwit.
Not unless you're a mind reader, in which case my statement would simply be wrong.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Are you seriously trying to say that nonsense stories can be satisfying?
Whether they can or can't depends on the person. "nonsense" is also subjective.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
They don't have to. Exhibit A: PacMan
But if a game tries to tell a story, it better makes sense. No need to make perfect sense, I'm willing to throw in a good measure of suspension of disbelief.
bickerdyke
What about games about exploring the game itself? Like http://www.duangle.com/ for example (still early alpha, but look at the videos).
Or games which are just something you enjoy, like osmos, pathological, even 2048 does not need a story to kill many hours of productivity.
All these comments and no mention of Sierra's ... Quest games; Hero's Quest, Kings Quest, Space Quest, and the perenial Favourite Lesiure Suit Larry.
Plot driven with the right balance of humour and complexity... still enjoyable after 15+yrs.
As for FPS.. wolfenstien (2d & 3d), Duke Nukem 3d and wing commander. Sufficient plot to identify objective and make it enjoyable to play.
ACK NAK RST
What the hell does that even mean? How is the gameplay supposed to drive the story. The "gameplay" is just the word attached to the actual act of interacting with the machine to make the characters do stuff. How touch a physical thing to make your guy swing his sword or raise his shield. How does one make the running and crouching and shooting control interface actually directly affect the story.
portal was like going into starbucks, ordering a latte and instead receiving a covert handjob from a slightly chubby girl with glasses.
we get it - it happened. we dont need to hear the same goddamn story 1million times.
Because just shooting things gets booring. Shooting things for a reason is more fun.
It depends whether you want to make a game that will last a week or two, or you want a game that will last a year or two. Assume the buyer is only going to buy so many games in a year, but might buy Downloadable Content if they like the game.