I consider myself as not just a gamer, but also an amateur writer. Sure my stories have never been in a book, can all be found on-line and it isn't uncommon to find someone who hates the stories, in fact it's pretty common, I consider myself as someone who values story-lines a lot. While I'm not the guy who will sit back and play RPG games due to what may be a very thrilling story, I'm someone who values greatly how good a story-line is. Sure, you could get us to play as a guy who has to kill people while getting from point A to point B and the game-play could be superb, it would only end with an empty feeling at the pits of all our stomachs. Not just us, the people who play the games, but also the developers for making a soulless beast that has no purpose.
So; you have, the story-line. A motive to shoot that guy who also has a motive to shoot you. Let it be you're a down-on-your-luck gambler who has to take part in competitive shooting matches to gain his freedom due to the large debt he has gathered up, or you're an engineer/technician who has been sent to a ship that broadcast a distress signal and now, since your ship has blown up, you have to find a way off the ship you're on while surviving against the monsters. It doesn't matter, you have a reason for your character's existence. However, if there's something that is a predictable as the sun rising, is it'll contain either some deux ex machina or some plot holes, maybe even both!
Most current-gen games, while they bend over backwards (and possibly breaking their back which ends with them eating their arse until their life ends for one reason or another) to deliver a story that leaves you wanting to go on like a suicidal mental patient finally given a reason to live. Which like most mental patients, it's never squeaky clean. There's always some dust or rust on the plot that wasn't properly dealt with. There may be no explanation of how the technician and a girl who talks to him a lot actually broke up, just they love each other and there may be no explanation of how points are tracked in the competitive shooting matches, they just are.
So what is the point right? What is the point of putting heart, soul, and effort into games only to end with some deux ex machina here, some plot holes there and the unavoidable complaints about the story-line being either boring, unoriginal or problematic? Why try to write sophisticated stories when it'll only end in tears as people start complaining about the amount of holes the story poses (I could probably think of some good examples of this, but is it worth naming and shaming?)?
Simply, because people crave purpose. So you're stuck with a ?damned if you do, damned if you don't? problem. You could waste time and effort making a story that will bound make some people cry the same old ?BUT THE PLOT HOLES!? like a child learning a catchphrase of his favourite reviewer, or you could use that time and effort, put a thin coat of paint where the story used to be and focus on the game-play, making those shrill cries about the story absolute null and void due to the distinct lack of a real story.
Most people, I hope, will be jumping at me with knives in between your teeth and eyes filled with fire and hatred at this point. Why? The most likely outcome of, what could be considered, the rant is clear. You can almost see shore and the message is a well known and boring one. However, no. While it's obvious at this point that every game should pool resources in to make, what could be viewed as, a flawed story, it's not the way for every game.
There are some very good games, some very well known and some not so known, that adds what could resemble to be a story as an after-thought. After all, you COULD have an in-depth motivation to run through the streets shooting zombies complete with character development, reasons behind the disaster and the characters' histories, but is it always the right thing to do? Sure you need motivation, but sometimes the motivation is just obvious. When there is zombies running at you, the motivation is usually crystal clear: survive. Am I saying the only games that work with paint where the story is meant to be are zombie games? By all means no, but I find it a classic example.
What I guess I am simply trying to say is this: Stories will always be flawed if you look at it hard enough. If you stare at a painting hard enough, you will likely find a slight problem. Maybe the artist put the wrong colour and covered it up? Maybe it's an inaccurate stroke direction? I mention this point because every game I know has story faults. You name it, it's likely got some deux ex machina in it and some plot holes of course. While I'm not saying ignore a story because it will always be flawed and only praise how good it is, it's usually handy to take a step back and look upon the story because every polished table has it's scratches and exposing scratches isn't so much a good thing sometimes but sometimes is a sure-fire way to absolutely kill any form of enjoyment to be had. Which somewhat kills the point of video games as an entertainment source.
So, do you find yourself or sometimes find others just needlessly insulting a story to a game just because someone has looked a bit too closely at it? Do you tend to look at the story and look past it's scratches or ignore it completely due to how flawed it usually is?
So; you have, the story-line. A motive to shoot that guy who also has a motive to shoot you. Let it be you're a down-on-your-luck gambler who has to take part in competitive shooting matches to gain his freedom due to the large debt he has gathered up, or you're an engineer/technician who has been sent to a ship that broadcast a distress signal and now, since your ship has blown up, you have to find a way off the ship you're on while surviving against the monsters. It doesn't matter, you have a reason for your character's existence. However, if there's something that is a predictable as the sun rising, is it'll contain either some deux ex machina or some plot holes, maybe even both!
Most current-gen games, while they bend over backwards (and possibly breaking their back which ends with them eating their arse until their life ends for one reason or another) to deliver a story that leaves you wanting to go on like a suicidal mental patient finally given a reason to live. Which like most mental patients, it's never squeaky clean. There's always some dust or rust on the plot that wasn't properly dealt with. There may be no explanation of how the technician and a girl who talks to him a lot actually broke up, just they love each other and there may be no explanation of how points are tracked in the competitive shooting matches, they just are.
So what is the point right? What is the point of putting heart, soul, and effort into games only to end with some deux ex machina here, some plot holes there and the unavoidable complaints about the story-line being either boring, unoriginal or problematic? Why try to write sophisticated stories when it'll only end in tears as people start complaining about the amount of holes the story poses (I could probably think of some good examples of this, but is it worth naming and shaming?)?
Simply, because people crave purpose. So you're stuck with a ?damned if you do, damned if you don't? problem. You could waste time and effort making a story that will bound make some people cry the same old ?BUT THE PLOT HOLES!? like a child learning a catchphrase of his favourite reviewer, or you could use that time and effort, put a thin coat of paint where the story used to be and focus on the game-play, making those shrill cries about the story absolute null and void due to the distinct lack of a real story.
Most people, I hope, will be jumping at me with knives in between your teeth and eyes filled with fire and hatred at this point. Why? The most likely outcome of, what could be considered, the rant is clear. You can almost see shore and the message is a well known and boring one. However, no. While it's obvious at this point that every game should pool resources in to make, what could be viewed as, a flawed story, it's not the way for every game.
There are some very good games, some very well known and some not so known, that adds what could resemble to be a story as an after-thought. After all, you COULD have an in-depth motivation to run through the streets shooting zombies complete with character development, reasons behind the disaster and the characters' histories, but is it always the right thing to do? Sure you need motivation, but sometimes the motivation is just obvious. When there is zombies running at you, the motivation is usually crystal clear: survive. Am I saying the only games that work with paint where the story is meant to be are zombie games? By all means no, but I find it a classic example.
What I guess I am simply trying to say is this: Stories will always be flawed if you look at it hard enough. If you stare at a painting hard enough, you will likely find a slight problem. Maybe the artist put the wrong colour and covered it up? Maybe it's an inaccurate stroke direction? I mention this point because every game I know has story faults. You name it, it's likely got some deux ex machina in it and some plot holes of course. While I'm not saying ignore a story because it will always be flawed and only praise how good it is, it's usually handy to take a step back and look upon the story because every polished table has it's scratches and exposing scratches isn't so much a good thing sometimes but sometimes is a sure-fire way to absolutely kill any form of enjoyment to be had. Which somewhat kills the point of video games as an entertainment source.
So, do you find yourself or sometimes find others just needlessly insulting a story to a game just because someone has looked a bit too closely at it? Do you tend to look at the story and look past it's scratches or ignore it completely due to how flawed it usually is?
