305: The Story Sucks

[Jonathan Davis]

The Story Sucks

Videogame heroes routinely save the universe, win wars, and crush their enemies, but they seem particularly reluctant to experience any kind of internal change.

Read Full Article

 

[carpathic]

An excellent and thoughtful argument. It does speak to a problem with games, but does make the overall assumption that games ought to do more than entertain, and should aim to educate the person through moral decision making.

I am still on the fence about whether this is actually true and/or fair. Sometimes we might demand too much of the media, or perhaps better said, we demand that games purport to be something they may or may not actually "be".

I don't play a game to experience moral change (like in Aristotle's Poetics) or to grow, sometimes I just want to check out and kill baddies.

In my mind, it isn't that we should expect more of all games, but rather, the beauty of games is that you choose the level of interaction. Waiting for Godot was interesting almost precisely because you had no choice but to stay in the theatre, immersed in the feelings of anxiety and unknowingness - if a game made me feel that way, I'd turn it off. Do I care about my characters? Yes. Do I often play exactly the same character? Yes. Fantasy is just that, MY story, not someone else's driven by the motivations of the story writer. If I wanted that type of passive experience, I would watch television, or read a book. Games let me create the experience (albeit within limited areas), and that is their beauty. It matters less what the artist wants, and more what I want.

 

[Frybird]

something in common with videogame stories that, as an industry, we never seem to address: The characters don't change.

While that is MOSTLY true, i just have to throw in that it's not always true.
For example, i was caught off-guard that Bulletstorm, a game mostly recognized for dicks and dicks being tits and dicks being killed, actually features a character arc for both the protagonist and your half-robot buddy.

That said, the problem about character development in games it that most game plots, even good ones, usually play it in one of three ways:
(a) Characters actually develop off screen, mostly between sequels (see Half Life, Half Life 2 and it's episodes, Condemned)
(b) The whole plot revolves around a fairly developed character who has to discover who he is actually (KOTOR, Silent Hill 2)
(c) Actual character development gets thrown out and instead the game resorts to having everyone learning a valuable lesson by the end of the game, South Park Style (Psychonauts, GTA 4 and especially it's episode "The Lost and Damned")


For me, the problem is not as much the lack of character development, but that stories in games tend to go about it in the easiest but least involving way.

 

[Waffle_Man]

I'm a little skeptical of the given arguments, as the author seems to be forgetting two things:

1. Character development isn't necessarily progressive.
The revelation of hidden depths and other forms of retroactive development are just as much the sign of a good character as them changing during the story.

2. In video games, the player is a character.
The whole "the player is a character" as an excuse for having no (or next to no) characterization in the protagonist has been abused, but it isn't any less true.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Regardless of medium, the interesting part of any story isn't how or indeed if the good guy wins, but what rather we learn about ourselves from their experience

Yet video game protagonists are always ultimately 'successful' in their objectives. Perhaps character development becomes something of a moot point if we know "yeah, whatever, at some point, whatever direction/choices/compromises I make I'm eventually going to 'win'"? I feel there's more scope for focus on internal character development if put up against an adversary, say a tyrannous but legitimate dictator, who we are unable to vanquish entirely but can only limit their impact. The idea that ultimately 'winning' is a given in games is a hard partner to have when you're trying to establish a character persona with emotional depth.

 

[Vault101]

well I guess it doesnt matter...since aparently the industry is fucked

 

[thegamingbrit]

I hate to bring it up all the time but I always thought Ratchet from the original Ratchet and Clank showed a very good character ark that changed as different events happened in the game.

 

[danhere]

In a lot of cases, the game world is static in a general sense too. Not only does the protagonist stay the same, so does everything else. Sure, you might have vanquished evil after evil after evil, but the NPC in the first town will still act as if nothing ever happened. Everywhere you go, things are scripted to change only after you perform a certain action. Without the specific input from the player, the world stagnates. In some ways, the phenomenon you're describing is just an extension of that. Why have one person in the whole world have change when no one else does?

 

[beema]

Interesting article. I think some games could certainly benefit from this, while others are fine the way they are.
Perhaps I'd be more of a fan of the Uncharted series if Drake actually learned any lessons, or underwent some change of character, suffered some humility, or was anything besides a gold-obsessed self-absorbed smartass douchebag.

I haven't played Ocarina of Time, Braid, or SH2... :/
all on my "to do" list

kind of OT, but why is there a picture of MGS4 Snake in the header? Are you suggesting that the story in MGS sucks? (hehehe)
(also why is it credited as being from MGS3?)

 

[Ipsen]

In video games, the player is a character.
The whole "the player is a character" as an excuse for having no (or next to no) characterization in the protagonist has been abused, but it isn't any less true.

This is quite true, and it comes off as an excuse for a poor central character way too often in games these days.

The way I see it, most games just don't have good methods of providing ways to respond to emotional stimuli that a game may provide.

Take for (maybe a bad) example, Aeris's death in FF7. What do you do right after the scene? A boss battle with JENOVA. Maybe me, the player and character, wouldn't bother with such acts.

Something comes to mind though. How often do games let you write as a part of your capability as a character (think a big step-up from Bioware responses)? While probably virtually impossible on consoles, and may only affect other players, broad elements like a writing could give players the freedom to more accurately engage themselves in what's going on in the game (now how does the game itself respond...?).

In any case, an interesting read.

 

[LogicNProportion]

Was it bad that I was deeply disappointed by the fact that Metal Gear Solid provided the picture for the article, but had no mention in an article about STORY TELLING!?

Anyway.

Good article, and I agree, for the most part.

EDIT: Another good example of story telling would have to be The Darkness. Just wanted to throw the name out there.

 

[Usedname]

This was a very good article. Thanks for writing it.

 

[Frostbite3789]

It makes me sad that the article is 'The Story Sucks' and it has a picture of Solid Snake...I love the MGS story. I think it's really engrossing. I cried at the end of MGS3 for chrissakes.

 

[drivel]

Content like this is why I come back here every week.

An excellent and thoughtful argument. It does speak to a problem with games, but does make the overall assumption that games ought to do more than entertain, and should aim to educate the person through moral decision making.

I am still on the fence about whether this is actually true and/or fair. Sometimes we might demand too much of the media, or perhaps better said, we demand that games purport to be something they may or may not actually "be".

I don't think there's such a thing as "demanding too much" from video games. Of course different people want different things from the media they consume. That's why some people watch Jerry Bruckheimer movies, and some watch Darren Aronofsky movies. It's why some read Douglas Adams, others read Jane Austen, and still others don't read fiction at all. It's why some people listen to Eminem, and others listen to Mozart and still other listen to Tool. Everyone is looking for something different. I think most people consume a variety of genres and artists because even the same person can want different things at different times.

I'm pretty sure there are various examples that show how games can be something more than just "fun." The examples given in the article are pertinent, and everyone has an example of a time that a game solicited an unexpected emotional or intellectual response.

To your other point, the creator's intent is important inasmuch as they convey that intent effectively to the audience. If they're ham-fisted in their attempts to convey emotion, then the emotional response from the audience will reflect that. If they craft something with cleverness and care, they'll likely receive the reaction they were looking for, and I believe the audience will get more from consuming it in turn.

I think that's what the author is trying to express. Developing characters using well-defined narrative conventions can mean a game has more impact than one in which little or no character development occurs. I for one, agree. Sure, sometimes you just want to blow some stuff up. But I find it hard to argue that having a well-constructed narrative, and great character development layered in, where it doesn't interfere with the interactive parts of the game, could do anything but make a game better.

 

[Boober the Pig]

You missed the resurrection moment in Bioshock. *Spoilers* It wasn't the character but the player that needed to change and that was supposed to come during the final escort quest. At this point the Little Sisters were no longer invulnerable but they also had nothing to offer. If a Little Sister died at this point you could just grab another from an infinite supply. There was no reason to defend them except the idea that you were there to protect them. Otherwise you were using the valuable resources that you had collected throughout the game to protect them instead of saving them for the final boss as you normally would in any game. This was a point in the game that called for selfless sacrifice from the player, and if you did protect the Little Sister you had passed through your resurrection moment.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

To Jon Davies,

***Contains some big spoilers on recent and not so recent movies and a couple of relatively old games***

By "defining" a good story that way you exclude many more possible foundations for a memorable story. A good story can be built around characters with little development. Having little development doesn't necessarily mean a character is not memorable. What about larger than life heroes (anime example: Haruko from Fooly Cooly), lovable rogue heroes (another anime example: Isaac and Miriam from Baccano!), cynical heroes (Garreth from Thief 3: Deadly Shadows) and so on. A good story will still be a good story even if the characters in it are as one-dimensional as a photon.

However if you have a shitty storyline even great character development won't save it. And I mean a story has to be good from the very beginning to the very end. A simple story plus good character development can work though, that is true.

And the part about sacrifice is simply ridiculous: you really do think that by killing off a character at the end the drama becomes more engaging. It doesn't, unless that sacrifice is meaningful and has a massive weight, like say in Black Swan or The Myst. And in case of Zelda, of course, it wouldn't be meaningful at all.

In case of Braid, the game is as open to interpretations as your run off the mill Coen bros. movie (one of the most overrated directors imho). So you really can't say if the guy learned anything at all. I always saw Braid as a reflection, but a reflection doesn't mean a lesson well learned. Memories are interpretive as well (Memento was good in showing us that), so whether you learn something or not is entirely up to you. And what is a "lesson well learned anyways"? Or does everybody have to conform to the views of society: its distorted morals, ideals and visions on life?

I for one would like to see a character walk away from his demise whilst flashing a middle finger at the world, VTM: Bloodlines style.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

I disagree with the arguement. I actually think that there are some good characters out there but I don't htink his use of Link and Zelda of all characters was well done. There are plenty of better characters out there that develop at a good rate. There are good stories and then there are games with no story and there are games with just bad stories. It's all about how you take it though I guess.

Some people like games with no story like Portal, and others (myself included) don't like games without stories.

There's a time and a place for everything though, a time for stories and a time for just brutal puzzle solving or NPC or PC killing.

 

[Arkengetorix]

An important point to make is that any decisions or lessons a video game character can learn is entirely arbitrary.

It is an interactive medium that depends entirely on the input of the people playing it. The narrative and character arc has to make sense, there needs to be some kind of reason as to why a character may change and it should be visible in game. Most importantly that change needs to be represented in an interactive way. Otherwise it's pointless. The difficulty that plagues games is trying to blend together a sense of dramatic narrative with a sense of interactivity, and it is incredibly difficult to do so.

For me, who does care about story, the weakness of games is not in characterization however, or the stagnation of said characters. It is the scope of story available. Games are working from a very minimal reference pool; I don't see story arcs becoming significantly more complicated until games can actually successfully branch away from their current limited scope.

 

[carpathic]

Content like this is why I come back here every week.

[I don't think there's such a thing as "demanding too much" from video games. Of course different people want different things from the media they consume. That's why some people watch Jerry Bruckheimer movies, and some watch Darren Aronofsky movies. It's why some read Douglas Adams, others read Jane Austen, and still others don't read fiction at all. It's why some people listen to Eminem, and others listen to Mozart and still other listen to Tool. Everyone is looking for something different. I think most people consume a variety of genres and artists because even the same person can want different things at different times.

I'm pretty sure there are various examples that show how games can be something more than just "fun." The examples given in the article are pertinent, and everyone has an example of a time that a game solicited an unexpected emotional or intellectual response.

To your other point, the creator's intent is important inasmuch as they convey that intent effectively to the audience. If they're ham-fisted in their attempts to convey emotion, then the emotional response from the audience will reflect that. If they craft something with cleverness and care, they'll likely receive the reaction they were looking for, and I believe the audience will get more from consuming it in turn.

The problem that I was trying to point out was more that we expect video games to be something they are not. Games are not books, they are not movies, if we want them to be the art that people claim they are, then we have to think more broadly about what they can be, rather than getting caught up in things we obsess over with other media. For me, the whole purpose of games is my intent, not what the author wants, and that is the joy creating my own experience and not having to live out someone else's moral lesson.

It wasn't a question of not understanding what the author was trying to say, but rather disagreeing with his point.

Perhaps when I said "demanding too much" I mispoke, what I was trying to say is that we are layering expectations of videogames that might not actually apply to the media itself. We are limiting its possibilities by comparing games to other mediums and then expecting that games conform. I genuinely don't care about authorial intent, the joy of a game is that I can tell the writer to stick it and draw my own experience. If the author and I agree on one thing, it is that Games can be so much more than they are - an infinitely personal experience that is still relatable to others. I don't agree that the creator's intent is important, nor should it be. Take visual art - the only person to whom the creator's intent is important is often the creator - not agreeing with Rothko about whether his pieces elicit anxiety in me does not make his point more or less valid, just important to him. Thom Yorke of Radiohead is famously anxious about people reading into the intent of his songs.

I guess in the end, I am worried about the layering of expectations upon videogames strangling their possibility as a medium and this article, excellent and thoughtful as it was, continues this potentially distructive process. We might end up with just another interactive book, and I think videogames deserve better.

Ack...got a little ranty there- sorry!