Story in games, or lack thereof - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roofles · 07-27-2005, 09:36 PM

Evening all. I figured it was about time to stop lurking around so here's some food for thought. For the sake of cutting some fat, you may skip to the asterixes as I tend to wander a bit before going in for the kill. Since this was a semi rant, I left the "fat" in for the purposes of texture and juicyness.

I've been playing computer games forever. Since my old apple IIe, then a few macs, and the last 8 years has been with pcs. Until recently, I have always been looking forward to the next generation of graphics, AI, sound, and generally speaking a richer experience with every wave of games. I do have something of a technical interest in games as well so I confess to getting off on small subjects such as sound occlusion and squad AI and the like.

Until recently these developements have been enough to keep me coming back. I feel that the evolution of games has reached a sort of plateau. The truth is more likely a combination of that and myself reaching a saturation point. As of the last few years the rate of change in game complexity seems to have levelled off. Of course they still change but not as much as before.

In addition, I feel that games are changing faster in the wrong ways. Let me elaborate on that. The fact of the matter is that every game from every major studio has bad ass graphics with bad ass sound, with bad ass sound tracks and some manner of kick your teeth in AI in it (i feel they [the industry] are predominantly full of shit on the last count, more on that later). I remember that at some point only some games had bad ass graphics while the rest didnt. And that was ok. It was like that one movie having mind blowing special fx. It just wasnt absolutely necessary. But let me get to the fuckin crux of the matter before I continue, in case someone made it this far.

*** DING DING ***

Heres the dealio folks. Games rely entirely too much on the novelty of their own medium. Bad ass graphics and sound certainly provide a slicker experience but what then?

After playing the aforementioned game for some time; after I stop ogling (takes a little while, still), what then? I need a reason to keep playing. Multiplayer based games need not apply here. Personally I find a lot of satisfaction in the social and ever changing aspect of multiplayer games so graphics and sound are icing on the cake. Back to the single player realm. I require motivation to complete a game. The mere act of playing the game and working the game machine, if you will, is not sufficiently entertaining. Many games seem to presume that this action alone along with a tenuous excuse for a storyline is enough. A storyline about as meaty as those poor runway models in the fashion shows. We likes women with a bit o meat right? (this is for everyone, you know what i mean gals)

In my memory and opinion, the the best games ive played have always had incredible stories. Top two I'd say say were the marathon series and deus ex (ok thats 4 but whats a few games between friends eh?).

More Later. Somethings just come up. What you tink?

Thanks for readin'.

El Pollo · 07-28-2005, 12:51 AM

Keep in mind that videogames are games first, and stories second. It's main purpose is to be a fun interactive experience. Who cares why the blocks are falling from the sky? You don't need a back story to continue playing Tetris. Stories are just icing on the cake. And don't underestimate the progress made thus far. Back in my day, we'd play games where the storyline was "The president has been kidnapped. Are you a bad enough dude to save him?" That was all the story we needed to pound on hundreds of random thugs. Storytelling in games has come a long way, but the focus still needs to remain on the gameplay itself. When they focus too much on story we get games like Xenogears where you have to sit through 45 minutes of dialogue at every stupid cutscene.

FngKestrel · 07-28-2005, 03:24 AM

The stories need to serve the game.

Back in the day, outside of the arcade scene, adventure games were huge at one point, with Sierra dominating with their King's Quest series, Hero's Quest, Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Space Quest, Laura Bow, Manhunter, Gabriel Knight, etc. Lucasarts had their own with Monkey Island, Zak Macracken, Day of the Tentacle, etc. And Infocom with their Zork Series and every other parser driven game they created.

Back when visuals were crappy, designers needed to make games with great stories to engage the mind, which could arguably provide the best graphics out there. As technology improved, the shift moved away from stories and more about visuals.

Will Wright said it best, "Back then, it was about 20% visuals and 80% mind, nowadays, it's 80% visuals and 20% mind." (paraphrase)

Arcade games necessarily had lackluster storylines, simply because of the niche they operated in. Rarely do people have time for a narrative in the span of a few minutes, which is what the average player does at an arcade.

The evolution of technology and gamespace affects how much narrative is focused on these days. We've gone from text-based games to graphically intensive games to online games. MMORPGs have questionable narrative content, but that's because it's hard to tell a story to thousands of people simultaneously in a medium where you don't control every aspect of the storytelling, a la movies. Instead, events are created and story is communicated in that fashion.

I agree that gameplay is still paramount, and that some designers would do well to remember that. Stories serve the game. If the game succeeds with a storyline like, "The president has been kidnapped," then so much the better. But it's definitely a measure of what type of game that determines the importance of story in it.

hulk · 07-28-2005, 05:35 AM

Pretty much hit it on the head, FngKestrel. The best games are ones with stories that compliment the gameplay wonderfully, like Deus Ex, most Zelda games, the venerable Marathon, System Shock, RE4 and so forth. Those are the ones that will be remembered in years to come, while those that are all eye candy will age by the next generation.

Redjake · 07-28-2005, 07:23 AM

I agree 100%. The games I have the most fun in are the ones with engaging stories. Granted, some games don't need stories (such as puzzle or racing games).

The best advice, as much as I get flamed for it, it to check as many reviews as you can before putting time into a game. Use word of mouth also. Reviewers will tell you if the story sucks. There are still tons of games out there with excellent stories. Just gotta sift through the shit.

t3m3st · 07-28-2005, 08:06 AM

The Xbox 360 comes out in November. I was on that bandwagon. Cool new graphics, ra ra ra... Then I realized that less than 10 days later, I'll be wanting something like 4 new PS2 games and that GameCube game I've been waiting for since 2001. I don't think we're even ready for this next generation. The XBox was the most powerful machine of the current generation, and it's not even going to have a 5 year life. It's somewhat upsetting. I have to wonder how long it will be till we see a third Xbox... 2008? 2007?

I discovered Police Quest a few years ago, and was blown away. That style of game shouldn't have gone out. I'd like to see it updated with current graphics and the same text entry input.

I've just this week discovered the brilliance of Perfect Dark. I can't get over how great that game is. I'm having alot more fun with it that I ever did with, say, Halo.

Mr.Deflok · 07-28-2005, 01:38 PM

Funny, one of our columnist for NZGamer just put this article up...
http://nzgamer.com/index.php?type=3&id=134
Stories in Games

Quote:

“Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.”

Thus spoke John Carmack, creator of Doom 3, and all-round smart guy. This is the man who builds rockets for a hobby. So obviously, when he claims that no one really plays games for the storyline, he has to be correct about this as well, right?

Well, maybe. To get a bit of perspective on the importance (or lack thereof) of stories in videogames, let’s take a look through the years at various big-name titles and the emphasis they placed on plot. Generally speaking, there were far fewer games with detailed storylines and characterisation back in the early nineties. For one thing, videogames were (and still are?) seen as fun timewasters – not something to get involved in. On top of that, there simply wasn’t enough memory available on old NES, Master System, Amstrad, or Commodore disks and cartridges to include a decent story. Often, the only time you’d learn that a game actually had a story was if you read a three-line blurb about it in the game manual. So technological limitations, coupled with the traditional view of videogames as light entertainment, often kept a game’s storyline short and unimportant – it was merely an excuse for whatever the developer threw at you.

On the other hand, the PC of the day sported a number of titles that were actually story driven. These role playing games actively encouraged the player to get involved with the story, caring about his or her character and their actions. The emphasis was placed on making a (somewhat) believable world, fleshing it out with far more dialogue than was common at the time.

However, this focus on compelling stories was mainly confined to rpg’s or adventure games – games that focused on things like sports, fighting, or action, still contained very little story elements. It was like that years ago, and it is still like that today. So genre, it seems, strongly dictates the importance of a story in a game. The question is, why is a detailed storyline so important in some games, and not in others?

The answer to this lies in the main advantage that videogames have over other forms of entertainment – they are interactive, not passive. When you go to read a novel, you do so for one reason only – to be wrapped up in its plot. When someone plays a videogame, however, they could be doing so for several different reasons, depending on the type of game it is. Maybe they’re after an adrenaline rush, or they crave some fast-paced action – or, maybe, they want to be sucked in by an immersive story.

Consider a game like Warcraft III. If it were a novel, you would be passively reading about how the heroes won all the battles and saved the day. However, because it is an interactive game, you are forced to take actively participate in winning those battles. As a result, the games focus shifts from being about the story of some heroes and the battles they fought, and becomes a multi-faceted entity that contains story, strategic thinking, risk-taking, and micromanagement. Instead of being able to sit back and enjoy the story in the knowledge that the heroes will win, you have to win the battles for them.

The point is that games can have multiple purposes, and being told a story is just one of them. So my reply to John Carmack would be that storylines in some types of games – such as the games he likes to make – are indeed unimportant. But in other genres, a good plot can be just as important as the gameplay or graphics, and can lift the game up to new heights. It all depends on what the gamer is after, which is a great thing about videogames – they can offer all sorts of different ways to have fun. Telling a compelling story is just one of them, but when used correctly, can have just as much an affect on the game as the graphics or gameplay. Consider games like Silent Hill, or Baldur’s Gate, or any decent adventure game, where the story is tightly interwoven with the other aspects of the game, creating a far greater playing experience.

I mentioned earlier that videogames were considered to be fun time wasters, and nothing more. To many people this is still the case, and it seems to be the viewpoint of Carmack. However, it is clear that many gamers also enjoy getting immersed in the world of the game, if the story and characters are of high enough quality. At its best, an involving videogame can surpass a passive form of entertainment like the novel – its interactive elements allow it (in theory) to tell stories on a level that books can only dream of. I for one hope that we’ll see more games released that treat storylines as an integral part of the gaming experience – not as an excuse.

roofles · 07-28-2005, 02:12 PM

Indeed games are games, but thats where I think the difference in expectations comes from. I realize that I have always expected games to become another medium on par with books, theater, and movies. I don't believe there is any reason for games to remain simply games as we know them, off in a corner by themselves away from movies, books, and theater.

I have alot of respect for Will Wright. What he said regarding 80 20 I believe is entirely true. The old games had little else to offer besides an engaging mental side, so designers had to work with what they had.

In the fullness of things, I believe there needs to be balance. I dont mean 50 50 for all games but as was mentioned before sufficient story to serve and improve the game. After all, anything that detracts from the enjoyment is useless in the end right? The instant that whatever manner of story content (or gameplay gimmick) we are dealing with begins to interfere with the experience as a whole, it becomes as useless as the filler levels we've all dealt with. And again, as was said before, a game is a game. As such it shouldnt be filled with stupidly enormous dialogues because what sets games apart from the other mediums is that they are interactive and dynamic. I feel like if I wanted a book or book on tape, I would have bought one. So much cheaper too.

The point about long dialogue also brings up another interesting issue. How can the story be related to the player without disrupting the visceral experience that makes games what they are? Its tricky, I think. There are a number of mechanisms available and I believe a combination of these tools yield the best result as their effectiveness is highly contextual. Off the top of my head, these tools are:

Cutscene, in game
Cutscene, pre rendered
Narration (one of my favorite)
Textual dialogue
Inter-character dialogues and interactions

I tend to favor narration over the others as it is very rich and doesnt interrupt the gameplay experience at all. In a narrative, you have the voice actor with their hopefully great skill enriching your experience while the gameplay does the same. Its a double whammy for me. I dont feel the other methods are able to communicate and enrich to the same degree as narration on a consistent basis. But like I said before, they all have their place, together I might add. Think of your favorite game with a story and imagine that it had the story told with a well balanced sprinkling of the methods listed above and perhaps others I have failed to mention. How cool would that be?

roofles · 07-28-2005, 02:37 PM

I began writing my last post before the incredible piece by Mr. Deflok. The man that wrote that has obviously taken more time to organise and present his thoughts than I have, but I suppose thats why he's paid for it. That aside, I think its a great piece and was happy to hear some of the items I mentioned mirrored.

After reading I realized one important thing mentioned in that article is how sensitive a genre is to this. I want to touch on this more. Dont get me wrong, I'm not crusading for a story in tetris and if there was one I would likely start deriving pleasure from torturing small rodents out of shear sickness over the matter.

Now I'm sure many will disagree with the following. Dont hate me. Yet.
I dont consider all game genres or mediums to be equal in an evolutionary sense. Text adventures were great, but they can't stand up to what the new technology allows us to create in the way of game experiences. Some genres I feel survive due to their own novelty, and thats ok. As far as I know, that is why theater is still around. There is something charming about the stage presentation. And its charming enough to keep it around despite the fact that a movie can better relate a play. I would say the same about hand drawn animation as well. Please, I'm not trying to be derrogatory here towards any one genre or medium.

That said, I feel that games that maintain fluid action and involving story at the same time are the most highly evolved. This follows from my belief that games, offering a dynamic experience, are more highly evolved than say movies. Theories of evolution aside, sometimes you just want a good flick. I'm in no way trying to negate that reality.

I think some day games will grow far beyond their simple nature today and become interactive fictional experiences. At the same time, some games need not deliver any more than they do. The connection here is that in order for this to occur it must become common the way hot graphics and sound are to have story lines just as developed as our purdy shaders these days. 400 years from now, the best way to play an old puzzle game might still be on some kind of portable 2d display. And maybe the best way to play chess will always be on a real chess board. who knows. I think what I'm really trying to say here is that a holodeck would rock.

PS
I think porn with a good story is better than without.

hulk · 07-29-2005, 06:51 AM

roofles, what you mentioned about text adventures works both ways. Compare MMO's to MUDs. The graphical orgasmic pleasure (or whatever) of Everquest of WoW is great, if you're into that. The problem therein lies with the player's ideas of what's what. Imagination is the key, so to speak. In a MUD, I can imagine and re-create any character I want, and it'll come across that way. In an MMO, I'm trapped by set boundaries and guidelines with character creation. With an MMO, if my Level 32 Knight looks exactly the same as another Knight, well, what can I do?

As for plain ol' single player text adventures, well, you're spot on

That's why they stopped being cool when graphics started

roofles · 07-29-2005, 11:24 AM

Good point on giving up the freedom of your vision of your character. I suppose the arguement is as valid as why novels shouldn't have loads of pretty pictures. Then again, I would say that the old MUDs or text adventures were much more like an interactive novel than a game in the sense that the visceral experience we have nowadays wasnt present. At least it always felt that way to me. Its always possible that I lack the imagination to make the visceral experience for myself without an orgy of shaders and polys onscreen gyrating to throbbing soundtracks...or something

RubenBaraja · 07-29-2005, 02:40 PM

A couple of recent titles I have played have had pretty good storylines:

Beyond Good and Evil
Oddworld Strangers Wrath

Ironically both of these did not sell well over here in the UK. EA obviously thought it would be more important to promote FIFA Street and NFSU2.

Also thought Half Life 2 had a pretty good plot when compared to the likes of Doom 3.

Seems to me though that the games which are story driven seem to suffer in terms of sales. Stick a FIFA or Star Wars franchise on any genre and it will sell

FngKestrel · 07-29-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubenBaraja

Seems to me though that the games which are story driven seem to suffer in terms of sales. Stick a FIFA or Star Wars franchise on any genre and it will sell

It's true that story driven games are definitely not the genre that gamers are clamoring for. Most adventure games out now sell for 20 bucks. It's the price point for a game that has a good story but with limited replay value. Even Lucasarts has been close to dumping their adventure game series. They were hesitant to release 'Escape from Monkey Island' and only did so because of their long lineage to the series.

StuckinRow · 08-01-2005, 02:13 PM

I have always wondered why PC games mostly lacked a real in depth story. The Final Fantasy series is overwhelminly popular, mostly because of its amazing storylines. Quite a few other Console RPG's have storylines that make you feel as you were in the story but why dont they make any games on the PC that can have that same effect? Or am I just missing them?

FngKestrel · 08-01-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuckinRow

I have always wondered why PC games mostly lacked a real in depth story. The Final Fantasy series is overwhelminly popular, mostly because of its amazing storylines. Quite a few other Console RPG's have storylines that make you feel as you were in the story but why dont they make any games on the PC that can have that same effect? Or am I just missing them?

I think they've had their heydey. The PC game market used to be dominated by adventure games. Several genres evolved after that took advantage of the PC's capabilities in ways that really grabbed gamers in different ways, namely FPSes and RTSes. But RPGs are still played on the PC. Fallout series has a great story (so I'm told), Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights to name a few.

And adventure games are making their comeback, at a lower price point these days albeit.

roofles · 08-01-2005, 03:58 PM

Lately I've been seeing articles here and there, more or less about this subject. I noticed something that stuck with me while reading them. The presence of a story in the game should not be confused with a properly constructed plot. Character development also seems to be sorely absent these days.

While RPGs do allow for much richer stories, character development is rarely there. I figure story is what they told us it was in english class, and anything that doesn't meet those requirements really isnt much of a story. Ruben mentioned hl2. The gameplay was incredible. They really have that down pat, even if it felt a bit formulaic at times. The story was a huge let down. I spent 75% of the game waiting to figure out what is going on just to jump right into the resolution of the whole conflict that was hardly built.

It seems that the standards for story within games is not the same for story within movies or books. There isn't any reason it can't be that way.

fng, do you suppose its possible that gamers aren't going for story driven games because they aren't being fed too many? I'm thinking that is a stong possibility. You're right, story driven games are out of style. I'm not sure thats the key here anymore. I don't think the story should drive the game by any means, the player should. Many of these older games forced the player to complete a certain arc of the story before advancing. It seems modern gaming needs an infusion of story intensive games driven by the players actions, not story driven games. what do you think?

FngKestrel · 08-01-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roofles

Lately I've been seeing articles here and there, more or less about this subject. I noticed something that stuck with me while reading them. The presence of a story in the game should not be confused with a properly constructed plot. Character development also seems to be sorely absent these days.

While RPGs do allow for much richer stories, character development is rarely there. I figure story is what they told us it was in english class, and anything that doesn't meet those requirements really isnt much of a story. Ruben mentioned hl2. The gameplay was incredible. They really have that down pat, even if it felt a bit formulaic at times. The story was a huge let down. I spent 75% of the game waiting to figure out what is going on just to jump right into the resolution of the whole conflict that was hardly built.

It seems that the standards for story within games is not the same for story within movies or books. There isn't any reason it can't be that way.

fng, do you suppose its possible that gamers aren't going for story driven games because they aren't being fed too many? I'm thinking that is a stong possibility. You're right, story driven games are out of style. I'm not sure thats the key here anymore. I don't think the story should drive the game by any means, the player should. Many of these older games forced the player to complete a certain arc of the story before advancing. It seems modern gaming needs an infusion of story intensive games driven by the players actions, not story driven games. what do you think?

I think it's a two fold action. New game A come out that isn't very story heavy but appeals to a larger market, which in turn sends a message to game developers that people want more of game A and are willing to pay for game A. Developers reciprocate by making more of games like A. The industry, and many entertainment type industries are driven by the notion of "one hit, many imitators." So if you've got the good game one year, you'll be sure to see more games next year like it. The industry is also constantly evolving, so while WW2 FPSes are the norm right now, give it some time to run its course.

Game should be driven by players, but having a cohesive narrative alongside it is actually incredibly difficult. Lee Sheldon gives a regular seminar at the GDC about trying to put good story telling in an open environment, which is what more and more games are trying to be. Back in the days of adventure games, you could get away with something linear because it was easy to make checkpoints in the system. Nowadays, depending on your game and the player, you may not ever have a storyline emerge. And if you do, what's the best way to present the story? MMORPGs suffer from this because while they can offer content, content is not the same as story, which several companies are finding out these days.

I agree with you that story for games should be held to the same standard as for other forms of entertainment, but game makers have a significany hurdle to overcome in that they can't control primary aspects of storytelling. For example, movie makers can control their cinematography, and block their shots the way to have the most impact.

Character dev is a tricky issue in games because it only appears in many games as a "leveling up" of sorts. But what about when character development requires loss? Unless it's in a cutscene or some other hit over the head sequence, most players are going to just reload and try again. For instance, in the second Prince of Persia (The Shadow and the Flame), it is necessary for the prince to die at a certain point. Most people, when they hit that moment, reload the game. But you need to sit through the entire sequence to continue. A flaw in the story telling? Possibly, but it's much more interesting than a cutscene.

Will Wright also brought a good point with Spore and what he discovered in the creation of the Sims. People don't like to tell stories about characters in the games, they want to put themselves in the characters and tell stories about themselves. It's like, no one cares how Lara Croft won against the bad guys, because everyone's seen the cutscene and it's immutable. But people are interested in telling others about how THEY played the game and the cool thing they did on the way to beating the bad guys.

maul · 08-02-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

I think they've had their heydey. The PC game market used to be dominated by adventure games. Several genres evolved after that took advantage of the PC's capabilities in ways that really grabbed gamers in different ways, namely FPSes and RTSes. But RPGs are still played on the PC. Fallout series has a great story (so I'm told), Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights to name a few.

And adventure games are making their comeback, at a lower price point these days albeit.

RTS's can have an amazing story : Starcraft! Pretty much everything that came after that had a crappy storyline but worked because it was "3D"
FPS's can incorporate a great storyline too....Duex Ex The sequel was crap though I think

Also, neither of the games i've mentioned above sacrified gameplay in any way.

Derwood · 08-02-2005, 06:27 AM

This is why I love the Grand Theft Auto series. I'm not in it for the violence, sex, or whatever. I'm in it because it's a fully immersive story experience. You really get to know the characters in the game, everything you do makes sense in the context of the world/storyline, etc. Believe me, GTA games wouldn't sell so well if it was just all "bang bang, kill, fuck" without a cohesive storyline.

cabbit · 08-05-2005, 11:44 PM

Quote:

When they focus too much on story we get games like Xenogears where you have to sit through 45 minutes of dialogue at every stupid cutscene.

Now are you sure you meant XenoGEARS or XenoSAGA? Because gears had some great gameplay which way more than made up for the occasional dialogue rant. I dont think anyone can argue that Xenosaga 1 and 2 have the most ANNOYING DIATRIBES EVER!!! At least they're cinematics but that just makes the games movies. Especially 2 where i went literally 2 hours with no action, and I think in 1 i went over an hour before the first boss battle. I dont mind dialogues as long as they tie up the plot because its sure as hell is better than a shotty one.

"man can accept the impossible but not the improbable" - Oscar Wilde

07-27-2005, 09:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
roofles Upright Location: San Diego	Story in games, or lack thereof Evening all. I figured it was about time to stop lurking around so here's some food for thought. For the sake of cutting some fat, you may skip to the asterixes as I tend to wander a bit before going in for the kill. Since this was a semi rant, I left the "fat" in for the purposes of texture and juicyness. I've been playing computer games forever. Since my old apple IIe, then a few macs, and the last 8 years has been with pcs. Until recently, I have always been looking forward to the next generation of graphics, AI, sound, and generally speaking a richer experience with every wave of games. I do have something of a technical interest in games as well so I confess to getting off on small subjects such as sound occlusion and squad AI and the like. Until recently these developements have been enough to keep me coming back. I feel that the evolution of games has reached a sort of plateau. The truth is more likely a combination of that and myself reaching a saturation point. As of the last few years the rate of change in game complexity seems to have levelled off. Of course they still change but not as much as before. In addition, I feel that games are changing faster in the wrong ways. Let me elaborate on that. The fact of the matter is that every game from every major studio has bad ass graphics with bad ass sound, with bad ass sound tracks and some manner of kick your teeth in AI in it (i feel they [the industry] are predominantly full of shit on the last count, more on that later). I remember that at some point only some games had bad ass graphics while the rest didnt. And that was ok. It was like that one movie having mind blowing special fx. It just wasnt absolutely necessary. But let me get to the fuckin crux of the matter before I continue, in case someone made it this far. * DING DING * Heres the dealio folks. Games rely entirely too much on the novelty of their own medium. Bad ass graphics and sound certainly provide a slicker experience but what then? After playing the aforementioned game for some time; after I stop ogling (takes a little while, still), what then? I need a reason to keep playing. Multiplayer based games need not apply here. Personally I find a lot of satisfaction in the social and ever changing aspect of multiplayer games so graphics and sound are icing on the cake. Back to the single player realm. I require motivation to complete a game. The mere act of playing the game and working the game machine, if you will, is not sufficiently entertaining. Many games seem to presume that this action alone along with a tenuous excuse for a storyline is enough. A storyline about as meaty as those poor runway models in the fashion shows. We likes women with a bit o meat right? (this is for everyone, you know what i mean gals) In my memory and opinion, the the best games ive played have always had incredible stories. Top two I'd say say were the marathon series and deus ex (ok thats 4 but whats a few games between friends eh?). More Later. Somethings just come up. What you tink? Thanks for readin'.

07-28-2005, 05:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	Pretty much hit it on the head, FngKestrel. The best games are ones with stories that compliment the gameplay wonderfully, like Deus Ex, most Zelda games, the venerable Marathon, System Shock, RE4 and so forth. Those are the ones that will be remembered in years to come, while those that are all eye candy will age by the next generation. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

07-28-2005, 07:23 AM	#5 (permalink)
Redjake I'm a family man - I run a family business. Location: Wilson, NC	I agree 100%. The games I have the most fun in are the ones with engaging stories. Granted, some games don't need stories (such as puzzle or racing games). The best advice, as much as I get flamed for it, it to check as many reviews as you can before putting time into a game. Use word of mouth also. Reviewers will tell you if the story sucks. There are still tons of games out there with excellent stories. Just gotta sift through the shit. __________________ Off the record, on the q.t., and very hush-hush.

07-28-2005, 08:06 AM	#6 (permalink)
t3m3st Vroom! Location: Toronto	The Xbox 360 comes out in November. I was on that bandwagon. Cool new graphics, ra ra ra... Then I realized that less than 10 days later, I'll be wanting something like 4 new PS2 games and that GameCube game I've been waiting for since 2001. I don't think we're even ready for this next generation. The XBox was the most powerful machine of the current generation, and it's not even going to have a 5 year life. It's somewhat upsetting. I have to wonder how long it will be till we see a third Xbox... 2008? 2007? I discovered Police Quest a few years ago, and was blown away. That style of game shouldn't have gone out. I'd like to see it updated with current graphics and the same text entry input. I've just this week discovered the brilliance of Perfect Dark. I can't get over how great that game is. I'm having alot more fun with it that I ever did with, say, Halo. __________________ I do it for the rare drops

07-28-2005, 02:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
roofles Upright Location: San Diego	I began writing my last post before the incredible piece by Mr. Deflok. The man that wrote that has obviously taken more time to organise and present his thoughts than I have, but I suppose thats why he's paid for it. That aside, I think its a great piece and was happy to hear some of the items I mentioned mirrored. After reading I realized one important thing mentioned in that article is how sensitive a genre is to this. I want to touch on this more. Dont get me wrong, I'm not crusading for a story in tetris and if there was one I would likely start deriving pleasure from torturing small rodents out of shear sickness over the matter. Now I'm sure many will disagree with the following. Dont hate me. Yet. I dont consider all game genres or mediums to be equal in an evolutionary sense. Text adventures were great, but they can't stand up to what the new technology allows us to create in the way of game experiences. Some genres I feel survive due to their own novelty, and thats ok. As far as I know, that is why theater is still around. There is something charming about the stage presentation. And its charming enough to keep it around despite the fact that a movie can better relate a play. I would say the same about hand drawn animation as well. Please, I'm not trying to be derrogatory here towards any one genre or medium. That said, I feel that games that maintain fluid action and involving story at the same time are the most highly evolved. This follows from my belief that games, offering a dynamic experience, are more highly evolved than say movies. Theories of evolution aside, sometimes you just want a good flick. I'm in no way trying to negate that reality. I think some day games will grow far beyond their simple nature today and become interactive fictional experiences. At the same time, some games need not deliver any more than they do. The connection here is that in order for this to occur it must become common the way hot graphics and sound are to have story lines just as developed as our purdy shaders these days. 400 years from now, the best way to play an old puzzle game might still be on some kind of portable 2d display. And maybe the best way to play chess will always be on a real chess board. who knows. I think what I'm really trying to say here is that a holodeck would rock. PS I think porn with a good story is better than without. Last edited by roofles; 07-28-2005 at 02:43 PM..

07-28-2005, 12:51 AM	#2 (permalink)
El Pollo Insane Location: Austin, TX	Keep in mind that videogames are games first, and stories second. It's main purpose is to be a fun interactive experience. Who cares why the blocks are falling from the sky? You don't need a back story to continue playing Tetris. Stories are just icing on the cake. And don't underestimate the progress made thus far. Back in my day, we'd play games where the storyline was "The president has been kidnapped. Are you a bad enough dude to save him?" That was all the story we needed to pound on hundreds of random thugs. Storytelling in games has come a long way, but the focus still needs to remain on the gameplay itself. When they focus too much on story we get games like Xenogears where you have to sit through 45 minutes of dialogue at every stupid cutscene.

07-28-2005, 03:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	The stories need to serve the game. Back in the day, outside of the arcade scene, adventure games were huge at one point, with Sierra dominating with their King's Quest series, Hero's Quest, Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Space Quest, Laura Bow, Manhunter, Gabriel Knight, etc. Lucasarts had their own with Monkey Island, Zak Macracken, Day of the Tentacle, etc. And Infocom with their Zork Series and every other parser driven game they created. Back when visuals were crappy, designers needed to make games with great stories to engage the mind, which could arguably provide the best graphics out there. As technology improved, the shift moved away from stories and more about visuals. Will Wright said it best, "Back then, it was about 20% visuals and 80% mind, nowadays, it's 80% visuals and 20% mind." (paraphrase) Arcade games necessarily had lackluster storylines, simply because of the niche they operated in. Rarely do people have time for a narrative in the span of a few minutes, which is what the average player does at an arcade. The evolution of technology and gamespace affects how much narrative is focused on these days. We've gone from text-based games to graphically intensive games to online games. MMORPGs have questionable narrative content, but that's because it's hard to tell a story to thousands of people simultaneously in a medium where you don't control every aspect of the storytelling, a la movies. Instead, events are created and story is communicated in that fashion. I agree that gameplay is still paramount, and that some designers would do well to remember that. Stories serve the game. If the game succeeds with a storyline like, "The president has been kidnapped," then so much the better. But it's definitely a measure of what type of game that determines the importance of story in it.

07-28-2005, 02:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
roofles Upright Location: San Diego	Indeed games are games, but thats where I think the difference in expectations comes from. I realize that I have always expected games to become another medium on par with books, theater, and movies. I don't believe there is any reason for games to remain simply games as we know them, off in a corner by themselves away from movies, books, and theater. I have alot of respect for Will Wright. What he said regarding 80 20 I believe is entirely true. The old games had little else to offer besides an engaging mental side, so designers had to work with what they had. In the fullness of things, I believe there needs to be balance. I dont mean 50 50 for all games but as was mentioned before sufficient story to serve and improve the game. After all, anything that detracts from the enjoyment is useless in the end right? The instant that whatever manner of story content (or gameplay gimmick) we are dealing with begins to interfere with the experience as a whole, it becomes as useless as the filler levels we've all dealt with. And again, as was said before, a game is a game. As such it shouldnt be filled with stupidly enormous dialogues because what sets games apart from the other mediums is that they are interactive and dynamic. I feel like if I wanted a book or book on tape, I would have bought one. So much cheaper too. The point about long dialogue also brings up another interesting issue. How can the story be related to the player without disrupting the visceral experience that makes games what they are? Its tricky, I think. There are a number of mechanisms available and I believe a combination of these tools yield the best result as their effectiveness is highly contextual. Off the top of my head, these tools are: Cutscene, in game Cutscene, pre rendered Narration (one of my favorite) Textual dialogue Inter-character dialogues and interactions I tend to favor narration over the others as it is very rich and doesnt interrupt the gameplay experience at all. In a narrative, you have the voice actor with their hopefully great skill enriching your experience while the gameplay does the same. Its a double whammy for me. I dont feel the other methods are able to communicate and enrich to the same degree as narration on a consistent basis. But like I said before, they all have their place, together I might add. Think of your favorite game with a story and imagine that it had the story told with a well balanced sprinkling of the methods listed above and perhaps others I have failed to mention. How cool would that be?

07-29-2005, 06:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	roofles, what you mentioned about text adventures works both ways. Compare MMO's to MUDs. The graphical orgasmic pleasure (or whatever) of Everquest of WoW is great, if you're into that. The problem therein lies with the player's ideas of what's what. Imagination is the key, so to speak. In a MUD, I can imagine and re-create any character I want, and it'll come across that way. In an MMO, I'm trapped by set boundaries and guidelines with character creation. With an MMO, if my Level 32 Knight looks exactly the same as another Knight, well, what can I do? As for plain ol' single player text adventures, well, you're spot on That's why they stopped being cool when graphics started __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

07-29-2005, 11:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
roofles Upright Location: San Diego	Good point on giving up the freedom of your vision of your character. I suppose the arguement is as valid as why novels shouldn't have loads of pretty pictures. Then again, I would say that the old MUDs or text adventures were much more like an interactive novel than a game in the sense that the visceral experience we have nowadays wasnt present. At least it always felt that way to me. Its always possible that I lack the imagination to make the visceral experience for myself without an orgy of shaders and polys onscreen gyrating to throbbing soundtracks...or something

07-29-2005, 02:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
RubenBaraja Insane Location: Gaming Thread, and the UK	A couple of recent titles I have played have had pretty good storylines: Beyond Good and Evil Oddworld Strangers Wrath Ironically both of these did not sell well over here in the UK. EA obviously thought it would be more important to promote FIFA Street and NFSU2. Also thought Half Life 2 had a pretty good plot when compared to the likes of Doom 3. Seems to me though that the games which are story driven seem to suffer in terms of sales. Stick a FIFA or Star Wars franchise on any genre and it will sell

08-01-2005, 02:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
StuckinRow Upright	I have always wondered why PC games mostly lacked a real in depth story. The Final Fantasy series is overwhelminly popular, mostly because of its amazing storylines. Quite a few other Console RPG's have storylines that make you feel as you were in the story but why dont they make any games on the PC that can have that same effect? Or am I just missing them?

08-01-2005, 03:58 PM	#16 (permalink)
roofles Upright Location: San Diego	Lately I've been seeing articles here and there, more or less about this subject. I noticed something that stuck with me while reading them. The presence of a story in the game should not be confused with a properly constructed plot. Character development also seems to be sorely absent these days. While RPGs do allow for much richer stories, character development is rarely there. I figure story is what they told us it was in english class, and anything that doesn't meet those requirements really isnt much of a story. Ruben mentioned hl2. The gameplay was incredible. They really have that down pat, even if it felt a bit formulaic at times. The story was a huge let down. I spent 75% of the game waiting to figure out what is going on just to jump right into the resolution of the whole conflict that was hardly built. It seems that the standards for story within games is not the same for story within movies or books. There isn't any reason it can't be that way. fng, do you suppose its possible that gamers aren't going for story driven games because they aren't being fed too many? I'm thinking that is a stong possibility. You're right, story driven games are out of style. I'm not sure thats the key here anymore. I don't think the story should drive the game by any means, the player should. Many of these older games forced the player to complete a certain arc of the story before advancing. It seems modern gaming needs an infusion of story intensive games driven by the players actions, not story driven games. what do you think?

08-02-2005, 06:27 AM	#19 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	This is why I love the Grand Theft Auto series. I'm not in it for the violence, sex, or whatever. I'm in it because it's a fully immersive story experience. You really get to know the characters in the game, everything you do makes sense in the context of the world/storyline, etc. Believe me, GTA games wouldn't sell so well if it was just all "bang bang, kill, fuck" without a cohesive storyline. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel