How Important is Lore in Multiplayer-only Games?

[Hawki]

After drinking the sweet, salty tears of Quake fans who don't like Quake Champions per its abilities (can tears be sweet AND salty?), I looked at the website, and I noticed something that I found quite gratifying, in an admittedly silly way. Namely the lore blurbs for the characters of Nyx and Scalebearer. For reference, here's Nyx's:

Ages have passed since the peaceable Melem learned to harness the Fathom Orb, imbuing themselves with a trace of its baleful energy to enable ?Ghost Walk??a momentary phase-shift into another dimension. Even when they were sieged by hulking, chitinous marauders, the Ghost Walk saved them as it had many times before. Then, the unthinkable: One of the attackers returned and breached the Orb. With no alternative, the Melem broke their inviolable law and sent their most skilled assassin to the Fathom Orb, not knowing whether she would survive, let alone how she might return.

And here's Scalebearer's:

As a warlord of the marauding Greiss, he conquered countless worlds, plundering technology to strengthen his armies. But defeat by a reclusive, phase-shifting race led to his exile. Obsessed with vengeance, he discovered their power source: an ancient shrine with a seething sphere of liquid within. When at last he slaughtered its guardians and entered, the sphere consumed him?and he vanished. He awoke in a bizarre, brutal realm, transformed by arcane energy. Now he seeks a way back, to regain his command and wield his newfound might.

I probably shouldn't have to point this out, but in case you missed it, we can assume that the Greiss are the beings that attacked the Malem, that it was Scalebearer that stole the orb, and Nyx was sent after him. If you're really paying attention, you might notice that the Malem, being outwardly human, is a similar principle to Doom with the people of Argent D'Nur and whatnot (another id game).

I'm using this as an example, because I feel it's an example of worldbuilding that goes the extra mile. It's one thing to write a short bio for a character in something like a MOBA or a hero shooter, another to actually have those bios connect, and give insight into a larger world. It's something that games like League of Legends and Overwatch do quite well, that even if I don't play them, the lore is interesting enough and accessible (since it's so readily available) that I can become fairly invested in it. Still, while I'm sure people can name other examples, it seems that few such games actually do bother, even though I'd argue that even if lore is completely separate from gameplay in these cases, being able to invest in characters/setting without story is still a net positive from a creative and commercial standpoint. Yet few MOBAs bother with anything bar an excuse plot and short bios, and as far as hero shooters go, there's Paladins for instance, a game that hasn't bothered to explain who these 'paladins' are, or why they're fighting. Even The "Meet the X" shorts of Team Fortress 2 give plenty of characterization, if not worldbuilding, and from what I understand, the latter has been provided for with comics and whatnot.

But, that's just me. So, the question I put to everyone is:

a) Is investing in lore/characterization in multiplayer-only games a good investment of resources?

b) Is it something that you personally appreciate from a creative and/or gaming standpoint?

...actually, that's two questions. ;p

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think lore is kinda pointless if there's no story. Lore is supposed to somehow deepen or enrichen your experience with the story. Stuff like the T2 videos are fun on their own, but they don't make the game itself any better than it already is. Same with the whole mythology surrounding Overwatch. It doesn't affect the game whatsoever, and doesn't give the characters or their actions any meaning. Yet people like pretending it does, because I guess it gives the game a dimension it doesn't have by itself.

 

[Zhukov]

Not in the slightest.

If it's there and to my liking then, hey, bonus. But if it isn't or it's rubbish then I don't particularly care.

I found it pretty funny when people got upset over League of Legends being changed to remove the whole champions-controlled-by-wizards-while-fighting-in-magical-ressurection-arena setup that is supposed justify random selections of respawning heroes fighting.

I wouldn't consider it a good use of resources, but I could well be wrong. Seems to be working out just fine for Overwatch.

 

[American Tanker]

Beyond explaining why the characters are engaged in whatever conflict or competition they're in, it doesn't matter at all.

Now if there's a single-player story that explains why the multi-player exists, then you might have something.

 

[Saelune]

Depends on if it works with the multiplayer. Though not multiplayer only games, Halo 4 on and Assassin's Creed build the multiplayer into the lore, and I like that.

I dont care about Overwatch though cause it has fuck all to do with anything. If you can have two unique individuals fight eachother, what is the point of lore?

 

[FalloutJack]

I dunno. The only one I have is Team Fortress 2, and I haven't even read the lore.

 

[RJ 17]

Beyond explaining why the characters are engaged in whatever conflict or competition they're in, it doesn't matter at all.

Now if there's a single-player story that explains why the multi-player exists, then you might have something.

I'd say that this is the most appropriate answer...however I'd take it a step more towards a more broader explanation.

It depends on whether the universe the game is set in requires more lore to explain the multiplayer combat/competition.

Now, having a good singleplayer campaign is a big part of that. But the example I'll point to is OverWatch. Here's a game that's MP only, but the universe that has been constructed is (apparently) so appealing that people are BEGGING for a singleplayer campaign. They want stories/lore revolving around the characters that they've come to love. The catch is that there already is a lot of story/lore around those characters in the form of comics/animations/etc.

Still there are people dying for a SP campaign...even when the mechanics of the game itself aren't conducive to such.

As such, you end up with a situation similar to League of Legends. You've got a game with many characters that people really like, each with their own little background story and such, but absolutely none of it has anything to do with the gameplay itself.

I believe that games such as Titanfall (the first one) and Evolve have proven that trying to weave the story into the multiplayer is pretty much useless. When one engages in an MP match, their focus is on the match itself, not what some random pop-up of a story happens to appear in the corner of the screen. To display my point on the other side of the equation, you have games like Rainbow Six: Siege. Multiplayer Only, but there's no need for a story behind it. Counter-Terrorists vs Terrorists (or whatever) in a siege situation. There's no need for any justification beyond just that: bad-guys are hold up in a building and it's up to the good guys to take them out. No point in wondering why the bad guys are in the building that they're in or why it's so important that the legendary Rainbow Six team be deployed to take these bad guys out.

So yeah, if you've made a world and filled it with characters that people can actually care about, lore is really important...important enough that people would demand a single-player campaign (even if the mechanics of the game aren't conducive to such) in order to get a more story-based experience with the game. This is because telling a story through a MP only game is very ineffective.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

IMO about as important as lore in fighting games: a nice bonus if done right, but ultimately it should be completely disposable. People play multiplayer only games explicitly for the gameplay alone, so adding additional lore to games whose core audience isn't seeking it seems like wasted effort to me. However, like in fighting games, if the game is relying on personality driven characters like TF2 or Overwatch, then giving the characters some sort of backstory or characterization is vital in maintaining the appeal of the game. No one is playing CoD: Black Ops anymore since military shooters full of identical military uniformed mutes are everywhere, but TF2 stood practically unchallenged in its position until Overwatch was released.

 

[Elijin]

Its like you have a bowl of vanilla ice cream, and lore is toppings. They can enhance the experience, but if they're not there, vanilla ice cream is delicious anyway.

I do think its worth the resources though, due to engagement. Look at Overwatch. The lore is totally disjointed and separate from the game, yet it captures peoples interest. Capturing people's interest is 100% of what you want happening. Think of Lore as a social media campaign or a good set of advertising. You might not need it to be successful, but if you have a great example in your corner, its going to improve things all around.


...I accept people might not be on the same page as my first point though, because not everyone is as into vanilla ice cream on its own.

 

[Hawki]

Depends on if it works with the multiplayer. Though not multiplayer only games, Halo 4 on and Assassin's Creed build the multiplayer into the lore, and I like that.

I can't comment on those games specifically (well, not H4 multiplayer, singleplayer is another story), but I do like the idea of adding lore in multiplayer. The Halo games have always at least used the multiplayer maps to add lore to the setting, and H5 certainly does add impetus in Warzone, the idea that the Spartan-IVs are fighting against the Created. So that's a nice touch.

To display my point on the other side of the equation, you have games like Rainbow Six: Siege. Multiplayer Only, but there's no need for a story behind it. Counter-Terrorists vs Terrorists (or whatever) in a siege situation. There's no need for any justification beyond just that: bad-guys are hold up in a building and it's up to the good guys to take them out. No point in wondering why the bad guys are in the building that they're in or why it's so important that the legendary Rainbow Six team be deployed to take these bad guys out.

Only played the first Rainbow Six game, so while it's a minor point, I can't help but wonder about Siege. Rainbow Six is meant to be an elite unit comprised of the best soldiers of multiple nationalities (well, at least NATO ones), and in Siege, they're doing...stuff?

Minor point, but it does feel a bit of a step down for the unit. I mean, the Ghosts at least get to blow stuff up in Bolivia.

IMO about as important as lore in fighting games: a nice bonus if done right, but ultimately it should be completely disposable.

It's funny that you mention fighting games, because I've found that lore and characterization do tend to merge with personal preferences. As in, my favorite fighting game franchise would be Soul Calibur, second would be Mortal Kombat, even if it's been ages since I've played both. So, in the former, it's a...flexible, interpretation of our world as it was in the 16th century, but even if you have to do a lot of digging, it does have an overall plot and motif of Soul Edge and Soul Calibur being in an eternal battle, waged through proxies, and people like Zasalamel operating on the sidelines. As for Mortal Kombat, the idea of multiple realms existing, multiple species, the elder gods, the tournament being the basis of protecting Earthrealm (at least initially)...well, it's hardly Shakespeare, even when the recent games have added a story mode, but it does help me get more invested in the characters and setting as a result. At the least, I find these franchises more appealing than, say, Street Fighter, which has the plot of...tournament stuff?

I dunno, but while Mortal Kombat and Soul Calibur are no slouches on the gameplay front, the lore aspect has always been a determining factor for me.

...I accept people might not be on the same page as my first point though, because not everyone is as into vanilla ice cream on its own.

Well, I prefer strawberry, but vanilla's still better than chocolate, so there is that.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

It's up to the individual, if they want more from the characters etc outside the game, then it's important. Some don't care so much, that's fine too.

 

[josemlopes]

Not at all, but in the end its making writter of the developing team busy while the rest is working on a multiplayer game that really doesnt need any writting, so meh.

It reminds me of how Doom had this big backstory in development untill they just decided to scrap it all out because they thought no one gave a fuck and in the end the game itself was what mattered instead of slowing down the game for exposition.

Rainbow Six Siege has barelly any lore to it, there is no big justification to why you have two Rainbow Six teams killing eachother, all there is is a small bio for each character and their quips during gameplay, mostly when deploying their gadget or at the start of the round. Thats basicly it and the game isnt worse for it. Counter Strike even has less lore.

Now the problem with Quake Champions is how much shit it looks like it will be right now, Doom multiplayer was shit too so to have Quake trying to be something that it isnt (and is already controlled by other game) is a pointless effort and a waste of an IP. Do we really need another game to try to be/out-do Overwatch?

EDIT: Also, why the fuck are the animations so boring and weak, UT4 also suffered from this, its just not that fun to play when all the weapons feel weak.
https://webmshare.com/play/VnRK3

 

[CaitSeith]

Cake decoration isn't necessary, but it can make it much better. In a market full of cakes, creating decoration that sticks on peoples' mind sounds like a good investment if your new cake tastes good.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Not important at all. because 99.9999% of all the players don't pay attention to even the largest of lore details 99.9999999999% of the time.
I mean how much lore does the average Overwatch player know? Big butts in tight pants, Tracer is a lesbo...that's it.
Or Titanfall? Robots are cool...yay robots...that's it.
Or WOW! Fuck the Alliance...that's it.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I like context to what I am doing. When I play a game I want a good experience something that engages me in some way and lore can go a ways towards that how much purely depends on how I find the rest of the experience.

Its not just lore or gameplay though the more they can do to draw me in the better. That doesnt mean I have to have lore often fighting tournament for a fighter is enough for me and honestly I wish some had stayed as that because their so called lore is so bad it takes away from the characters rather than adds looking at you Street Fighter (you want terrible lore look at capcoms CFN).

But if the gameplay is good im happy if the lore is good as well I am happier and if they have put that lore into the game i.e not scattered across the internet better still and if that lore is conductive to the game and what you are doing it can really heighten the experience.

 

[sXeth]

It's actually something I've found curious that none of these MOBAs, hero shooters, or whatever you call For Honor put any integration to their lore in gameplay.

Like, why not split up the Overwatch heroes so one team plays the bad guys and one team plays the good guys. Maybe have a few neutral mercenary types for those players who refuse to go outside a single character. The rosters may not be presently balanced, but if a game was built with the idea in mind, it would conceptually work.

Its actually how Command & Conquer Renegade worked (which is sort of the aged grandfather of hero shooters, though it also did Battlefield type stuff abit), along with Planetside currently working that way, with each faction having separate units (though the basic dudes are pretty standard fare, the variety comes more up in vehicles)

 

[Worgen]

It can actually be a determent in a multi only game. You will have some players who care about it and some that don't. Like its one of the reasons I didn't like playing borderlands with other people. I wanted to listen to the banter and enjoy the dialog and such, others want to just rush through it. I think its actually one of the big reasons I didn't get into the borderlands games, or never really really enjoyed them as much as I probably should have.