Games with great stories.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Guardian Heroes and Code of Princess. GH has a great story with multiple paths and endings, which makes it one of the most replayable action-rpg brawlers ever made. The combat has to be great too of course, but I like the fact you have all these different scenarios and endings based off your choices.
Code of Princess won't change your life, but I recommend anyone who plays it, get the 3DS version at a decent price or via emulation. The reason why I say this, is because the English dubbing of the game, is way more interesting and entertaining to watch and listen. I mean that in a genuinely good way, and not a "so bad, it's good way". The voice actors were on all cylinders, with the comedy and writing, while the Japanese version isn't bad, but they play things a bit more straight in that dub. You can get Code of Princess on Steam with the original and the EX version (on Switch too) on Steam, but neither have the awesome English dub, because neither publishers could get the rights for some reason! If you can't track down a 3DS copy at a decent price or don't want to use emulation, then play the EX version on Steam or Switch for the rebalanced gameplay.
Odin's Sphere has a great story too, and I still consider it the best of Vanillware's titles.
Radiant Silvergun has the best story of any SHMUP ever. Big warning: prepared to be depressed. Ikaruga makes things less depressing, but it is not as story focused.
Last edited:
I mean, Link could be looking for Skull Kid, that was a friend from OoT that would be missing. I'm pretty sure it's heavily implied to be the same guy so it certainly seems possible that was what the developers were thinking when they were writing the game.
The characters in this game have like 3 expressions, tops.
Personally, I like it when a story all fits together like a well oiled machine. I also hate 2001.
Ok, yeah, it's more developed than LttP, but it's a rough sketch compared to something that is actually story focused. Like, Link isn't even a character, all he can do is stare with a gormless expression on his face. How well do we really know any of the characters in the game? We get a dozen lines of dialogue each from the major ones and you can infer and infer about this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character. What does Saria like other than playing that one song on the ocarina and little blonde Hylian boys? What doesn't she like besides the forest getting overrun by Ganon's minions? How would she react if someone laughed at her for her green hair, would she get angry, cry, or would she take it in stride and laugh along with them? We really know next to nothing about her, because we spend next to no time with her. And this goes for everyone. The character we spend spend the most time with, besides Link, and who has the most dialogue in the game doesn't even have a personality. Navi is just exposition and nothing else.
Let's compare this to a game that actually wants to tell a story, Disco Elysium. Over the course of the game you really get to know Kim Kitsuragi. You get to know what he likes, and what really ticks him off. You learn about his past, and his hopes for the future and also his fears. By the end (heck, by the start) he really feels like a real person, you can understand how he would probably react in situations that aren't in the game beyond some vague idea that 'he'll do the right thing'. And this goes for so many of the characters in the game, even most of the really minor ones feel like real people and get more dialogue than anyone in OoT. And that's just characters, you can take any aspect of DE's story (setting, themes, plot) and it will make OoT look like a doodle because even though it's a game with a story (and not bad for what it is) it's not a game about it's story and no amount of interpreted themes, tones, or symbolism will change that.
Well, that it's canonically Navi aside, I don't see how this even works. The intro text to MM says (paraphrased) "...searched for a lost friend he parted ways with when he took his place among legends." Skull Kid doesn't meet that definition in any sense. Meeting Skull Kid is optional in OoT, it happens relatively early on in most cases, Link shows no signs of particular closeness to him, nor particular recognition in MM. Even Saria would better fit this role.
As an aside, I always thought making Skull Kid in MM the same one as OoT was silly for a variety of reasons, but that's another matter.
Come on, that's a red herring. Any number of games may lack facial expression variety, there's countless ways to convey a scene. Even if facial expressions didn't exist in OoT, stuff like body language and music cues still exist, including the scene in question.
I'm not fond of 2001 either, but it's still a case of intentional ambiguity. This isn't speculation, Kubrick outright stated (paraphrased) "if you left the film with a full understanding, we failed. We wanted to raise more questions than we answered."
Any number of great works across mediums are open to interpretation and don't suffer for it. 1984 leaves it ambiguous as to whether Big Brother really exists. Blade Runner leaves it vague as to whether Deckard is a replicant. So on, so forth. Ambiguity can add to a story a lot of the time.
Wait, you're saying that OoT ISN'T story focused?
Okay, in the sense that gameplay has bigger priority than story in the game, sure, but that's true of most games as a whole. But that a common complaint against OoT is that it has too much story aside, I'm not sure how that claim stacks up in any real way. There's immense focus on story. There's a clear plot with clear stages, key themes, a focus on worldbuilding, cutscenes that stretch for minutes (that can't be skipped)...in any real sense, OoT has story in the forefront. Even if you disregard the games that came before it, story is clearly one of the game's primary considerations.
Again, disagree.
I'll be first to admit that Link, regardless of incarnation, isn't an in-depth character, even if some incarnations clearly have more personality than others (and OoT isn't the most fleshed out). However, I don't see how you could play OoT and say he has no character.
In fact, I actually tested this. Confining this purely to OoT (so I can't incorporate material from MM, TP, or anything else), what can I reasonably say about Link's character? Well:
-Lonely (we see him at the start, morose, due to the lack of a fairy, hear him sniff before the nightmare)
-Lazy, to an extent (given Navi's comments)
-Brave (partly because of the concept that actions define a character, partly because this is reinforced over and over, from the Deku Tree, to Impa, to Link getting the Triforce of Courage)
-Socially awkward, naive (there's a few key examples of this - first is Link's interaction with Darunia after Dodongo cavern, how he refuses the goron hugs. While the scene itself is played for laughs, this does reinforce the idea of Link being a bit clueless. For instance, when you get the Zora's Sapphire, it's outright stated that "you don't know what engagement/marriage is"), and this comes back to bite Link in the arse seven years later when Ruto confronts him (which again ties in with the childhood/adulthood theme, but that's on another level).
-Clearly has a softer, more emotional side that does come up from time to time. First is when he parts ways with Saria, as he's clearly torn up about leaving her/the forest. The second, arguably, is when he gives the ocarina to Zelda.
It's the broad strokes of a character, but even being as reserved as possible, it's not correct to say that Link has no character.
I can make a number of deductions about Saria:
-Cares about Link (is clearly happy for him when Navi comes, is morose to see him leave)
-Isn't interested in Mido (it's certainly inferred that Mido has a thing for Saria, such as a kokiri can, but there's no sign of reciprocation)
-Can play the ocarina
-Intuitive (she's able to sense how important the Forest Temple will be well before she's awakened as a sage)
-Brave (she goes to said temple while the rest of the kokiri sans Mido hide)
So, no, I don't know how Saria would react to someone teasing her about green hair, but I can certainly make a number of inferences based on the elements of her character that are established. And again, that's not even getting into the thematic elements.
Again, that's just not true.
Of the three fairy companions Link's had over the series, Navi's probably the least-well developed, and she certainly doesn't compare to, say, Midna, but I can hardly say she has no character. Again, confining this purely to the game and nothing else, what do I know about Navi?
-Cares about the Deku Tree (takes time to say a final goodbye, even after Link leaves)
-Generally pleasant, but impatient (even casting aside the "hey, listen!" exclamation, she's impatient that Link takes so long to wake up)
-She's generally implied to have a vested interest in Saria. What I mean is that it's telling that without any prompting otherwise, Navi mentions Saria twice as hints - first around Death Mountain, second, she mentions Saria as soon as Link emerges from the Temple of Time after his nap. And while the ludo reason for this is clear, bear in mind that Navi never does this for anyone else. For instance, she mentions the cold wind from Zora's Domain, she doesn't mention Ruto)
-Cares about Link, is brave (see her lines at the final battle(s)
Again, I'm not about to claim that Navi is an in-depth character, and she's known more as a meme these days, but to claim that she's "exposition and nothing else?" Sorry, I just don't see how that's the case.
Um, bully for Diso Elysium?
Sorry, never played DE, probably never will. Maybe it's better than OoT, that's beside the point - this isn't a comparison. If X has a better story than Y, that doesn't mean that story Y doesn't have a good story ipso facto.
Also, your last lines are a borderline contradiction. If you state a game isn't about its story, while also saying the game has symbolism, themes, and tones, then usually, that means the game is about, well, story (you could certainly claim that it's not about plot, and that's quite possible - for instance, 2001 is light on plot, but heavy on theme), but even then, I don't get how you can claim OoT isn't about its story. Not when it spends so much time on it, to the extent that, as I've already mentioned, there's a number of people who resent it for having too much story.
The first two Assassins Creeds are the high water marks for video game stories for me. They're my favorite version of the whole secret conspiracies ruling the world thing I've come across in any medium, and they do a wonderful job of using that story to "explain" game mechanics.
Ezio is dismissed by some as just some "playboy" but honestly that just feels like some meme thing that people say to sound smart. I also think criticizing revenge stories got cool around the same time that it became popular to always yell "morally grey" at everything. Both Altair and Ezio offer great drama, strong antagonists, exciting set pieces, epic themes, and actually satisfying endings.
Ezio is dismissed by some as just some "playboy" but honestly that just feels like some meme thing that people say to sound smart. I also think criticizing revenge stories got cool around the same time that it became popular to always yell "morally grey" at everything. Both Altair and Ezio offer great drama, strong antagonists, exciting set pieces, epic themes, and actually satisfying endings.
It's less revenge stories, and more so criticizing games that were constantly dark, gory, or "edgy" for the sake of it and juvenile reasons. Nobody complained about themes of revenge in No More Heroes 1 and 2, nor Nier around that time. Most people weren't playing Nier, but still.
See, I knew you'd do this, that's why I said "and you can infer and infer this and that because of every little detail that you are putting 10x the thought into that the developer did, but even then it's a rough sketch of a character."
Then why did you bring up LttP if comparisons don't matter? And yeah, that's actually how it works. Quality is relative. Let's say you've never read anything other than high school short stories all your life, you have no conception of a story that hasn't been written in a high school. You'd base your entire understanding of what is bad, good, and great off this body of amateur work written in a short period of time. Then let's say that one day you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Obviously this is going to blow away 99.9% of what you've read before and force you to re-conceptualize what good and great even mean in the context of a story because even the greatest of high school short stories can't hope to stand in the same category as it. What was great must become good, and what was good must become bad.
You'd think so but the crazy thing is that stuff like symbolism, themes, and tones barely even have to be written, leave everything vague enough and your audience will do all the work for you. A statement that you've been providing ample support for. That stuff is like garnish for a story. It's great if it's there, but without the actual meal it doesn't do anything. Man cannot live on symbolism alone.
I can claim OoT isn't about it's story because even if you took every NPC and cutscene out of the game you could still play it and get a somewhat similar experience. You'd explore, find secret heart pieces, solve puzzles, and defeat bosses. It'd still be a good game. The world would feel empty and you'd lack context for your goals, but I'm sure you'd still have people arguing up it's story based off of even vaguer details and the mystery of the abandoned world. If you took the NPCs and cutscenes out of a story focused game it would fall apart because the story was the entire point of the game.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that there is a difference between a game where the gameplay is designed to support the story, and a game where the story is designed to support the gameplay. Did the designers say "I want to make a game with these mechanics, what should the story be?" or "I want to tell this story, what should the gameplay be?" OoT is clearly in the latter category and I don't see how anybody can argue otherwise.
That's generally how characterization works - if a character does something, it informs the reader/viewer/player about that character. If I see Bob kneeling over the grave of Bill, with Bob sobbing, I can reasonably infer that Bob cared about Bill, even if it's never outright stated. Or to use a more practical example, the Doom Slayer from the recent Doom games barely says anything across said games, but a lot can be deduced about his character simply from his actions and how others react to him.
If you want an example of actual inference, I can infer that Link and Malon ended up together, drawing off OoT, MM, and TP to support that. However, that really is just an inference, because there's nothing concrete to support it. Saying Saria cares about Link, however, isn't really inferring anything, because you'd have to somehow ignore every interaction they have.
I've brought up ALttP because lots of people have used it as a point of comparison in video essays (Egoraptor, Deadlock, etc.), and because the framing of both games are near identical. Something like Disco Elysium isn't as relevant because it's not in the same series or genre, either mechanically (action adventure vs. CRPG) or narratively (high fantasy vs. crime drama). And back to what I also said, that OoT has a better story than ALttP doesn't make ALttP's story bad. The crux of the matter is that ALttP barely has a story at all, period. In a world where the series ended at ALttP, that still wouldn't change.
Well, yes, but also no.
I'm going to give a practical example I brought up on this very site - "There's a Hippo on My Rooftop Eating Cake." The conceit of the story is what the title suggests, and as a child, I loved it (for whatever reason). As an adult who re-read it a few years back, something I noticed is that the titular hippo is almost certainly a figament of the protagonist's imagination, because every interaction they have has some kind of counterpart in the real world. Little Hawki took the book completely at face value, Adult Hawki read it and thought "huh, that's pretty clever." The way one views fiction will change as they grow up, that's definitely true, it doesn't necessarily become worse because of it. I can never go back to reading a child's picture book and enjoy it as a child would, but I can look at a child's book and appreciate it in different ways, if the substance is there.
Now, you're also right in a sense that reading more mature fiction will make less mature fiction seem more appealing. For instance, reading A Song of Ice and Fire shifted the Overton window for me in regards to fantasy, given the quality and maturity of the writing, so while Lord of the Rings has stayed where it is on the scale for instance, something like the Inheritance Cycle seems much worse off (I still like Inheritance overall, but it's never been my favorite). Certainly Of Mice and Men is a very good, if not great piece of literature, and would be more advanced than what I read in primary school.
Here's the crux though - I appreciate OoT more as an adult than as a child. The reason I say that is because everything I've said about its themes and whatnot aren't things I would have said when I first played it (about 9 years old). Since OoT has come out, I've certainly played games with better stories (you can check the list I made earlier in the thread, a number of those entries would be better stories). Little Hawki would have played OoT and not thought much beyond the broadest strokes, Adult Hawki, having had time to reflect, realized the game's deeper themes. If you want a literary example, take Chronicles of Narnia. Little Hawki took them entirely at face value, Adult Hawki is able to understand the Christian allegory.
The TL, DR version is that while one's tastes mature with age, some things become better with maturity, not worse. If you want an example of that, take Banjo-Kazooie. Little Hawki was engrossed with the trailers of "bear has to save his sister, this looks absolutely epic!" adult Hawki will say "Banjo-Kazooie? Yeah, that was fun. Quaint. Not really a story-driven game, had fun, nothing to discuss storywise."
I agree with the last part - theme is the proverbial icing on the story cake - but a) OoT has a lot of cake, and b) stuff like symbolism, themes, and tone are very concious choices. Anyone can read into a theme if they put in enough legwork, that doesn't mean a theme is always present.
Difference is, OoT does have themes. I know we're at a point where we can't agree on this, but to me, it's obvious. I don't even need to put that much legwork in, the basic story structure, to Sheik's monologues, all support this. The game's called Ocarina of Time. The ocarina is a literal mechanic that allows time travel. Sheik monologues on time outside every temple. Every single sage in the game, bar Rauru,* is someone Link meets as a child, and parts ways with as an adult. Zelda outright tells Link to "reclaim his lost time," to reclaim the childhood he was never able to live. The reason I ship Link and Malon is that, among other things, she's the one exception where Link meets her as a child, but never 'loses' her as an adult, because it's a recurring theme with every single sage. There's even been other people who've pointed out that the scenarios Link faces as a child are the type of scenarios a child would envisage (e.g. "enter a giant fish with a princess"), whereas the scenarios he faces as an adult are bereft of a childhood veneer (e.g. the Shadow Temple is arguably one giant torture chamber, claiming it's emblematic of the evil that's lurked under Hyrule all this time when you factor in the well). I don't even necessarily agree with these interpretations, but there's a reason why OoT is generating them and not, say, Super Mario 64 (good game, but story is borderline non-existent).
Of course, themes are subjective, true, but at least to me, the themes in OoT are pretty obvious.
*Come to think of it, even Rauru technically fits this when you factor in Kaepora.
90% disagree.
The remaining 10% is that I can grant you that OoT could function bereft of context. Say, for instance, the only characters are Link and Navi, Navi takes him to a dead tree, tells him to get the Spiritual Stone of Forest, and so on, and so forth. However, as you yourself would point out, the world would feel empty, it would lack context. I'm sure you'd agree that context in a game usually makes one more invested in it if there's clear stakes and reasons for the protag to do what they're doing.
Can a game function with vague context? Based on what people have said about Dark Souls over the years, I'm assuming yes. But for OoT to work in the way you're describing, it would have to really lean into the mystery for it to match the original. Simply plop OoT in front of someone but remove every ounce of story, remove every character from the game, and I can't imagine anyone enjoying it like the real thing.
I think you meant to say "former" there.
I actually checked up Wikia and Wikipedia. While it's clear that there was focus on story elements (e.g. the developers paid attention to how cinematics would be delivered), I would actually agree with you (as I think I've stated) that OoT is "gameplay first, story second," the primary reason being that Nintendo has almost always put gameplay before story, and is known for the former far more than the latter. There's only a handful of Nintendo IPs (relatively speaking) that have strong story components (incidentally, LoZ is one of those IPs).
However, two things. First, most games put gameplay before story, period. There's a few genres where the opposite is true (story games, certain types of RPGs), but as a whole, most games put gameplay first. If that's the cutoff, then hardly any games are worthy of having their stories discussed at all. Second, not all priorities are equal. If Super Mario 64 is something like 95% gameplay, 5% story, Sonic Adventure is 75% gameplay, 25% story, and Ocarina of Time is 55% gameplay, 45% story, then clearly there's a difference between these games. The same rule applies, but the execution differs.
So, yes, I agree that OoT is gameplay first, what I don't agree on is the notion that makes its story irrelevant, or at least, not worth discussing/not good. And while this is partly an appeal to authority, there's a reason why we're discussing OoT's story and not Super Mario 64's story, despite the games being released on the same console by the same company only a few years apart. I can guarantee you that even as a kid, I could tell that one of those games had far more story in it than the other, hence the different types of emotional investment.
Last edited:
You're right.
Hey, I think you might be on to something here!
I don't have anything else to say on this topic, I feel there's been a fair bit of repetition in the discussion as it is.
Gunstar Superheroes has a great story for Blue and Red respectively, provided you're playing on Hard Mode for either of them. With Blue's story being the darkest of the two.
What's interesting about that game is that the story gets more complex the higher your difficulty setting is, from a standard 'save the world from the bad guys' plot on Easy to making you question who the real bad guys are on Hard.
As far as random JRPG stories go, I really liked Radiant Historia. I played the old DS game, but it got a 3Ds makeover.
Honestly I don't think either Golden Sun or Lost Age even collectively had particularly good stories per se, if all you're looking at is the main plot. It's a generic "save the world from bad guys who want to destroy it" plot that the second game subvert by turning out that the bad guys are actually trying to save the world... a twist which was in itself a cliche even back when the games were released.
However, I think where the story shines is the world building and character dialog, and there's a lot of both that you can miss if you're not thorough. Going to talk to every townsperson, guard, maid, etc. at various points as they update like a typical RPG will work, but you miss half of the characterization and world building that way. The Mind Read psyenergy lets you double up on what you get out of every character, and there's a lot of details about the world and the people in it that you get off of it. As for the characters themselves, from the major ones to the random NPCs most of what they say, think, and do doesn't come off as either a batch of narmy cliches that nobody would ever do IRL or like they don't really care about what's going on. The characters are well written enough that they seem like people, more or less.
I think in Golden Sun's case the story is pretty good with even just each of the 2 games alone for this reason. You really have to piece a good amount of it together for yourself but every town and area has quite a bit of world building and characterization going on.
Last edited:
I kind of agree, though I'd argue there's a distinction between games. GS1 has a very streamlined story compared to GS2, but GS2 has far more worldbuilding. The townsfolk dialogue is nice in both games, but that's true of RPGs in general.
Put both together, you have a great story. By themselves, you have two good stories IMO.
As I have state before, Witcher 1.
What the first game does excel at, like with its two sequels, was the story, the world-building, and the characters. There’s always the moral ambiguity where no matter what choice I made, something bad always seems to happen. There are no clear good/bad groups here (aside from some NPCs who were designed for the sake of being evil), and the aftermath of my actions was always felt, in more ways than one. All the characters were really well-written, and I felt bad when some of them were caught in the mess that I had created. The way I built relationships with the characters feels really significant, especially considering I know the eventual outcomes after playing W3. I am genuinely curious to see how much did my choices will influence the story of the later game.
I think one of the flaws of Witcher 2 and 3 is that things keeps dragging on, for the sake of fitting in as much characters and exposition as possible. Don't get me wrong, I loved experiecing them, but I had to refer back to the glossary many times to re-understand what has happened. And let's not forget the open-world design of Witcher 3 was its flaw; the main story being shoved to the backburner.
Thank god it's getting a remake, because I do not wanna play through Witcher 1 again. Even with mods it was a janky experience.
What the first game does excel at, like with its two sequels, was the story, the world-building, and the characters. There’s always the moral ambiguity where no matter what choice I made, something bad always seems to happen. There are no clear good/bad groups here (aside from some NPCs who were designed for the sake of being evil), and the aftermath of my actions was always felt, in more ways than one. All the characters were really well-written, and I felt bad when some of them were caught in the mess that I had created. The way I built relationships with the characters feels really significant, especially considering I know the eventual outcomes after playing W3. I am genuinely curious to see how much did my choices will influence the story of the later game.
I think one of the flaws of Witcher 2 and 3 is that things keeps dragging on, for the sake of fitting in as much characters and exposition as possible. Don't get me wrong, I loved experiecing them, but I had to refer back to the glossary many times to re-understand what has happened. And let's not forget the open-world design of Witcher 3 was its flaw; the main story being shoved to the backburner.
Thank god it's getting a remake, because I do not wanna play through Witcher 1 again. Even with mods it was a janky experience.