Do games, NEED story?

[Gottesstrafe]

No, they do not. Stories are entirely superfluous, like music, voice acting, and cut scenes. They might contribute considerably to your game play experience and make the game more memorable, but they aren't actually necessary to make a game. It's one of the reasons why I shake my head when people on this forum rant extensively on how a great story makes up for crap game play, or how story should always have priority over game play. No. Just... no. Game play and interactivity is what makes video games unique among other forms of media like movies and books. No matter how good a game's story and characters are, and no matter how invested in them you are, if there's little to no interactivity or input on your part then there's no stakes. Nothing that happens in the game can be reflective of you or your actions. A great game makes good use of story, game play elements, and the other set dressings. A game with good game play that has little to no story can still be a good game. A game with a good story and is light on game play is an interactive movie. A game with a good story and no game play is a book.

For the record, by story I mean plot, narrative, characterization, and etc. A little context on what you are doing, the rules of your game world, and how your actions affect what's going on in the game are necessary, otherwise you'd just be playing a game of calvin ball.

 

[Hyperone]

Do games all by default need stories? If that is the question than I would say no. While it is an integral part of gaming as a culture, there are plenty of games that are hailed as classics that amount to "someone stole something from you, now get it back".

 

[hondommond]

The downloadable game Journey doesn't necessarily have a story. The gameplay itself is what creates a story for the player.

One could argue that it does have signs of a story, but I feel that it could not stand alone without the solid gameplay and the emotional attachment that players create to the characters through gameplay.

So yeah even though my example isn't the greatest; I think games could stand out even though they didn't have a story. In what ways they would stand out would be an interesting thing to see!

 

[Auninteligentname]

I'll say no. A game don't need a story to work. Just look at Tetris and Pong and Pacman. A game with a story, doesn't need a complicated story to work, either, just look at Mario.

However, the more complicated a story gets (or if they put a lot of emphasis on the story), the more the game will be hated, if this story isn't good/enjoyable.

This should go without saying, but 'tis is just my opinion.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

In the very loosest sense, most genres intrinsically have stories. In Sonic The Hedgehog or Super Mario Brothers, the story is you getting from A to B, in Minecraft the story is whatever the fuck happens to occur in your playtime.

But, like I said, this is in the loosest sense of the word and is far from what people mean when they say "story."

A story in the sense of a real, cohesive (hopefully) narrative with actual characters who have motivations, a definite beginning, middle and end? No, games don't need that. It can make a good game great and a great game a classic, but it isn't needed. And some games are even ruined by their story (I will never forgive Max Payne 3).

There are some amazing games, both from now and from days gone by that managed to engross and entertain us without having to tell us a story. How many people love Torchlight despite it's bare minimum storytelling? Super Meat Boy? Any competitive multiplayer mode, ever?

Games can even be quite moving, thoughtful and "artistic" without a story. Journey has already been mentioned so let's go with that, first. In Journey, it's the aesthetics and the mechanics that have made the game the beautiful cult classic that it is, the "story" is just some context that even the likes of Super Meat Boy or Worms would give you.

NiGHTS was the same way. Yeah it had some "gamey" aspects like scores and shit (understandable since it is, y'know, a game) but the free flowing movement, the music, the art, it all creates this unforgettable experience that can only be described as bliss. There are so many games that manage to be thought provoking or moving without needing to tell you a "story." If, one day, we ever do reach the point where games need a story, it will be a sad day indeed. All we'd be doing is unnecessarily restricting the medium, preventing it from exploring the other myriad artistic possibilities in the medium and preventing us from getting fun, time-killing entertainment uninterrupted by exposition.

My favourite games are all pretty story-heavy, but I never want to see storyless games go away.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

That would be like taking the crazy out of Nicolas Cage... Sure he'd still be a decent actor but he wouldn't scream the alphabet, eat pigeons or run around shouting "I'm a vampire!" and everything would probably be just a bit worse of in the long run...

Kinda worse of and dull

Spoiler

Good

Spoiler

 

[Arrogancy]

At the most basic level, no, games do not need stories. That is a fairly uncontroversial point. However, you provoke controversy when you attack games for having stories at all, as some forums claim.

 

[emeraldrafael]

My opinion on it is the more advanced you make the game the more you should include a story. A good stroy can always only help so there's nothing wrong with games that have them as long as it doesn't feel forced or is half done.

 

[thejackyl]

No, games do not need a story. Some games are (personally) far better due to their minimal story-telling approach.

A lot of people will say that Dark Souls and Demon's Souls have no story, and that is definitely not true. Sure it isn't hand fed to you, but if you look at your items, and talk to the NPCs you'll learn a lot about the world. Though I will admit they should put a better emphasis on how the player finds it.

More examples: ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. Both have more or less an opening cutscene, boss intros(Not sure about ICO, haven't played that far), and the ending cutscene. The story is what gets put together by the player.

Also, Skyrim has an overarching story (That you can do at your own pace), and every quest usually has some back story to it.

Multiplayer focused games do NOT need a story (and are usually bogged down if they have one.) Guitar Hero/Rock Band don't need the Career Mode, since anyone can pick up the controller and have fun.

One of my favorite games has a next to no story and is getting a remake. X-COM.
"You are the commander of an army to save the world from alien invasion. Good Luck." No real context as to why they are attacking, or anything, but the game is still fun.

 

[DugMachine]

If you're gonna put any sort of story into it I feel it should be worthwhile not mediocre and just there for the sake of having a story.

Games that are barebones like say Tetris or Pong though wouldn't need a story cause.. well they just don't. They're games in it's simplest form.

 

[willsham45]

No not all games need a story.

But some games need context and the best way for this is usually story.

I would not be happy playing a shooter unless there was at least something there that says who these people are and why they are fighting.
But I would be happy to play something basic like tetrus or some similar type puzzle game with nothing. It just depends on what you are doing.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Again. Nowadays, story is needed and is more important than gameplay. Gameplay can only go so far until it hits limitations... which it pretty much has for almost every genre now. The only thing to make things different is by making story based games.

But there's so much games can do, artistically, as well as tell a story and there are still so many things in gameplay that could be improved and perfected. I see new innovations all the time.

Sure, we don't see many new genres but we do see new interpretations and improvements to the established formulas all the time. We see poor reinterpretations and changes for the worse, too, but, hey, we gotta take risks and figure out what works.

For many, many games the story is extremely important and maybe even what makes it great, but interactivity is what defines the medium; it is inherently the most important thing. I suppose, in many games the story and gameplay are inextricably linked, such as in Home, and in these cases story is just as important as gameplay... but the key phrase here is "just as." If your interactive bits are poor, all you're doing is making the story harder to enjoy. If the interactive bits are great and the story is poor, the game might still be enjoyable (unless it's got overlong, often unskippable cutscenes like Max Payne 3).

Besides, story based games are better than gameplay only ones.

I find it hard to disagree because nearly all of my favourite games are story-driven. I will say that I believe there's room for both; I want to see games develop and reach their full potential as a storytelling and artistic medium but I don't think every game needs to do that. It's perfectly OK for some games to just be fun timekillers.

 

[TrevHead]

Manuals need not exist. The human mind can hold so much more, and is easier to manipulate and implant.

Dood, it's all about imagination (lazy writing). Why bother spelling things out only to be contradicted. We can get away with so much more shit if we are vague and minimal!

Ah I see

While I still think manuals or an ingame wiki has its place, I do totally agree with what you that many games are too heavy and almost treat the player as a psychopath with no imagination to fill in the blanks themselves or capacity to understand emotion.

For example all those 8bit adventure games, they were very immersive when we were kids and are still today with indies using the same style. And while some might look like B grade 50s horror flicks to somebody used to watching The Saw, there's still alot the AAA industry can learn from them.

Homeworld would be a good example of a AAA story done this way. And it's why in some Japanese games I like oldschool text or English subtitles with the Japanese VO which I can't understand.

Hell even a simple shmup has a good story in it and is a rollercoster of emotion with overcoming adversity including facing that awesome boss for the first time when it kicks your arse than a few tries later you beat it. It's almost an tolken-eske adventure in itself

 

[wulf3n]

I always wonder if these types of discussions occur for all fledgeling media, that if 80 years ago people were arguing whether film needed a story or if it's better off being just a series of moving images.

 

[Samantha Burt]

The simple answer: does this sentence, need a comma?

Darn, ninja'd

OT: I really don't think a story is a requirement. I mean, story more-or-less ruined the UT series for me (seriously, field lattice generators?). Not everything needs more set up than: "here is X, use it on Y until Z happens. Now go nuts."

 

[lacktheknack]

I play Dwarf Fortress.

I also play Syberia.

Why do people insist on having one, but not the other?

 

[Arina Love]

I refuse to play games that don't have a story. i don't care about gameplay alone, what i need is full experience. Experience full of dialogue,characters,cutscenes and so on.

 

[Naranja797]

Doom.
Thank you very much.

 

[TrevHead]

The simple answer: does this sentence, need a comma?

Depends on how bad ones grammer is, in my case yes lol

 

[DustyDrB]

Games need story like your title needs a comma. But story can definitely elevate the experience vastly. It can rescue an ordinary or even a bad game. Having context and meaning behind your actions gives you an extra investment in them. I find myself creating a narrative of sort on my own when a game doesn't provide it.