Industry Luminaries Sound Off On Interactive Storytelling

[JeanLuc761]

Deus Ex! Dyy didi-diidy, dadaa dada-daada.

Storytelling these days is kinda sad tbh. Follow the artificial road and clear the rooms one by one while your sidekick screams at you to hurry up to the "Act 34" where you will encounter enemies that are not yet in their places no matter how long you waste your time on that little blockage that seems like you could just and just get pass it even thought you know its futile in your heart.

Sounds to me like you're complaining about linearity, but the best stories are required to be linear. If the structure is "Go anywhere you want at any time," then the overall story often falters a great deal and becomes disjointed. Linear games have a very specific story to tell, and they use the knowledge that the sequence of events will remain the same in order to tell a more compelling tale.

Example: People complain about Mass Effect 2 being too linear. What many don't seem to realize is that the linearity helps the story by making everything focused. Sure you can choose what order to pick up your squadmates, but the overall storyline plays out in roughly the same way to tell a story that is both compelling and makes chronological sense.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Yes, since most movie-games seem to follow the script of the movie, which is a bad thing.

Hmmm, I would perhaps be more inclined to treat direct video-game 'adaptations' of films/fiction as a different animal altogether in the sense that, chances are, we already know the plot with all its twists and turns and are less creating a narrative than, as you rightly imply, being 'scripted' through familiar territory - which, let's face it, is usually rather boring.

In the case of film-games, there often simply isn't enough in the films to make the game a straight clone of the events in the film - it would be cool to play the opening mission in say, a 'Saving Private Ryan' game, but content would have to be added to make the game longer than a couple of missions. It's when game developers include this extra content that things get interesting as they can paradoxically be some of the most exciting (since the outcomes of such an event are somewhat unknown) and depressing (in their crude bondage to the main plot)elements in a film-game.

And, games that, although not following the linear narrative of a film, are set in pre-existing fictional universes (such as that of say, Star Wars or Star Trek); what are their storytelling prospects? Presumably they could come under your 'first-story-then-game' idea (which, to clear things up, I also feel is the correct approach overall).

Dragon Age and Mass Effect have sold craploads on the consoles. Seems gamers are more then welcome to games with story. Most of the time games with actual, interesting stories aren't marketed that well(if at all), since the publishers rarely believe in them. This leads them not doing so well, which re-affirms their suspicion.

Yes, they're both genre and company successes (ME2:1.6 million units (X360), DA.O.: 3.2 million units (all platforms) ) and I'm glad developers like Bioware are out there and have the capital to ship big, story-orientated games but in perspective it wasn't an industry success. Those sales are still rather small fry in comparison to say Gears of War 2 (5 million units on 360), CoD: MW2 (7.5 million units on 360) and Halo 3 (8.1 mill on 360).

I'd expect only marginal growth on Bioware's sequels as well since only those who purchase ME1 and/or ME2 are likely to buy ME3 (perhaps a victim of it's own storytelling success since the complete narrative experience requires gamers to play through the whole series). Emphasis on story-telling won't cut the mustard for publishers if the best outcome for their bottom line still lies with a (typically) non-story-intensive genre such as FPS. ME and DA.O. are games for the 'converted', so to speak - beyond critics and genre/company fans, they don't attract enough positive attention to generate sales from casual gamers.

However, I feel these examples focus too much on the 'action-adventure' side of the large pool that is 'storytelling' - would I say these were poorly marketed? On the whole, no - but I think you're right about bad/mis-directed marketing when it comes to games that rely on other storytelling formats, especially those games without combat or an obvious adversarial element, but this represents a wider, more pervasive stereotype of what 'gaming' means to casual (rather than dedicated) gamers and attempts to market to this larger group. I reckon you're spot on with astute marketing being the answer to this catch-22 of 'scene won't change till we get a bestselling story-intensive game but story-intensive game format won't get the go-ahead till it's a proven, viable industry success'.

 

[Popido]

Deus Ex! Dyy didi-diidy, dadaa dada-daada.

Storytelling these days is kinda sad tbh. Follow the artificial road and clear the rooms one by one while your sidekick screams at you to hurry up to the "Act 34" where you will encounter enemies that are not yet in their places no matter how long you waste your time on that little blockage that seems like you could just and just get pass it even thought you know its futile in your heart.

Sounds to me like you're complaining about linearity, but the best stories are required to be linear. If the structure is "Go anywhere you want at any time," then the overall story often falters a great deal and becomes disjointed. Linear games have a very specific story to tell, and they use the knowledge that the sequence of events will remain the same in order to tell a more compelling tale.

Example: People complain about Mass Effect 2 being too linear. What many don't seem to realize is that the linearity helps the story by making everything focused. Sure you can choose what order to pick up your squadmates, but the overall storyline plays out in roughly the same way to tell a story that is both compelling and makes chronological sense.

I gave up on ME2 on halfway. They were too into telling me the story of great Shepard that there was no place left for me to play. It should have been a movie, not a game.

The game ofc wasnt ment for me at all. That was my mistake for thinking otherwise. Opinion, opinion.

...
I dont think linearity was the issue here. It was just badly executed. They couldnt disguise it. I knew I was in a tube and whenever I tried to walk a stray, there would be candy to be had.

Also, I strongly disagree that the best stories need to be linear. For the sake of my mental health.

 

[gl1koz3]

They talked so much and yet said nothing. A history recap and that games have got a way to go... Really? No way.

What I think should be the focus, though, is goddamn actual FOCUS. When some awesome new game comes up, stick TO HOW THE PREQUEL WAS MADE. Right now each successive iteration is usually too different to like if you had fun with the first one (there are exceptions). But why the heck change it in the first place, if the original was still a success. The devs only look like wetting pants each time some newbies complain about obvious things.

And what's that... ME2 as a good example of focus... I'd say that its focus was all over the place instead. And then the focus on shooting added to that. I don't even know what to focus on now after all that.

 

[Irridium]

Hmmm, I would perhaps be more inclined to treat direct video-game 'adaptations' of films/fiction as a different animal altogether in the sense that, chances are, we already know the plot with all its twists and turns and are less creating a narrative than, as you rightly imply, being 'scripted' through familiar territory - which, let's face it, is usually rather boring.

In the case of film-games, there often simply isn't enough in the films to make the game a straight clone of the events in the film - it would be cool to play the opening mission in say, a 'Saving Private Ryan' game, but content would have to be added to make the game longer than a couple of missions. It's when game developers include this extra content that things get interesting as they can paradoxically be some of the most exciting (since the outcomes of such an event are somewhat unknown) and depressing (in their crude bondage to the main plot)elements in a film-game.

And, games that, although not following the linear narrative of a film, are set in pre-existing fictional universes (such as that of say, Star Wars or Star Trek); what are their storytelling prospects? Presumably they could come under your 'first-story-then-game' idea (which, to clear things up, I also feel is the correct approach overall).

For games set in pre-existing universes(like Star Wars), its usually fine. A great example is Bioware's KOTOR. It avoids the films by setting the game 4000 years before them. And its a fantastic game.

For film games, I'd rather they set the game after, or before, the events of the film. Whichever would provide the better experience. It would tie in with the film, and not feel like a re-tread of everything. Movie-based games have the disadvantage of usually being forced onto shelves in time for the movie to come out though, so there's still that(which I feel needs to change, but I doubt it will anytime soon).

That being said, it isn't impossible to make a game set during the films. To use Star Wars again, the Star Wars Battelfront games are fantastic. All(or most) of the battles are from the movies. They don't bother much with the story, since chances are we already know it. Republic Commando is also another example. Granted thats not set during the actual films, but between them.

Now that I think about it, I think what matters is that whoever is making the games has a clear idea of what he/she wants to do. A good direction is what I guess it would be. Someone who knows what they want to do, and how they want it to tie in with the film. Granted thats easier said then done. First you have to find that person, then you have to get the publisher to agree, and then the film studio.

Yes, they're both genre and company successes (ME2:1.6 million units (X360), DA.O.: 3.2 million units (all platforms) ) and I'm glad developers like Bioware are out there and have the capital to ship big, story-orientated games but in perspective it wasn't an industry success. Those sales are still rather small fry in comparison to say Gears of War 2 (5 million units on 360), CoD: MW2 (7.5 million units on 360) and Halo 3 (8.1 mill on 360).

I'd expect only marginal growth on Bioware's sequels as well since only those who purchase ME1 and/or ME2 are likely to buy ME3 (perhaps a victim of it's own storytelling success since the complete narrative experience requires gamers to play through the whole series). Emphasis on story-telling won't cut the mustard for publishers if the best outcome for their bottom line still lies with a (typically) non-story-intensive genre such as FPS. ME and DA.O. are games for the 'converted', so to speak - beyond critics and genre/company fans, they don't attract enough positive attention to generate sales from casual gamers.

However, I feel these examples focus too much on the 'action-adventure' side of the large pool that is 'storytelling' - would I say these were poorly marketed? On the whole, no - but I think you're right about bad/mis-directed marketing when it comes to games that rely on other storytelling formats, especially those games without combat or an obvious adversarial element, but this represents a wider, more pervasive stereotype of what 'gaming' means to casual (rather than dedicated) gamers and attempts to market to this larger group. I reckon you're spot on with astute marketing being the answer to this catch-22 of 'scene won't change till we get a bestselling story-intensive game but story-intensive game format won't get the go-ahead till it's a proven, viable industry success'.

I suppose it depends on what the Publisher/Developer wants. Publishers want money. Developers, while they also want money, want to make a fun, enjoyable game. One with a great story, fun to play, and a memorable experience. Sadly since the Publishers control the money, they're usually the ones who get their way. Most great games end up fading, then becoming cult hits. And while I'm sure thats a great feeling, its not so great for profit.

There is success in story-driven games. To add more examples, Bioshock and Fallout 3/New Vegas. But, like you said, they don't sell as well as the Halo's or Call of Duty's. Which is a shame. Again, I guess it comes down to what the developers want to make, and what the publishers tell them to make. I'd rather have developers make what they want, and do it well. The result are games that have a unique charm to them. Metal Gear Solid for instance, Kojima has complete control over it, and while the result may or may not be good, its still a pretty unique and charming experience.

It just saddens me that story isn't given the attention it deserves, and that developers can't make what they truly want. I suppose if things were to change, the public would have to start demanding more story-driven games, publishers would have to let developers do their own thing, developers would have to focus more on story, and "core" audiences would have to be willing to support new properties. I don't see any of those things happening anytime soon.

 

[nohorsetown]

They talked so much and yet said nothing. A history recap and that games have got a way to go... Really? No way.

You're exactly right. They really think they're highbrow, don't they? But they have nothing to say. I also agree with everyone who said the editing and sound was obnoxious.

I think games are gonna have a hard time achieving quality storytelling as long as they keep relying on constant violence. All the smartypants RPGs are guilty of this, east and west. We've always got these sensitive characters having relationships and going on about hope and ideals and whatnot.. and each of them kills more (mostly identical) people over the course of the game than any ultraviolent action movie. Even with something like Persona, where you're killing demons instead of people, it's just not believable. Anyone who hacks their sword through the bodies of countless enemies is gonna be a complete psychological mess if they were ever anything more than a cold-blooded killer in the first place.

Planescape: Torment did it better than any of the stuff they mentioned, anyway. I'm getting sick of everyone holding up Dragon Age and Mass Effect as shining examples of storytelling. They're about as good as a crappy summer blockbuster, which, admittedly, is pretty solid for a video game nowadays.

If I killed someone, even in self-defense, I'd be pretty fucked up. Maybe I'm a hardened soldier with impeccable training and conditioning, but in that case, I'd act like one, and I wouldn't be a very appealing leading man if I was thrust into a video game plot. If I made witty one-liners as I mowed down the enemy dudes, I'd be a pretty creepy character, and not too easy to identify with in a typical "we're the good and idealistic heroes" story. If I went back to camp and started talking about how I love fancy Orlesian shoes, it wouldn't be believable at all. It'd be kinda like a really bad movie.. which is all we're gonna get if games keep "storytelling" the way they have been.

Basically, violence is one form of conflict. All stories (or at least a *huge* majority of them) have conflict, but in video games it's almost always violence, and if there's some other kind of struggle or conflict, it's resolved through violence anyway. If stories lacking conflict became prevalent or popular, it would require a major shift in how humans view the world, but it shouldn't be so tough to remove, or at least greatly tone down, the violence.

Or, just make a hyper-violent game that's proud of what it is. Just don't load it with story and cutscenes in an attempt to convince me that my mass-murdering space marine has feelings.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I miss the good old days were games like Outcast, Omikron: the nomad soul, Freelancer, Fahrenheit, or Scrapland were made, not necesarily for wanting to be the next BIG thing, or for it's graphics but mostly because it was a fully different experience of a game for the players.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

They talked so much and yet said nothing. A history recap and that games have got a way to go... Really? No way.

You're exactly right. They really think they're highbrow, don't they? But they have nothing to say. I also agree with everyone who said the editing and sound was obnoxious.

I think games are gonna have a hard time achieving quality storytelling as long as they keep relying on constant violence. All the smartypants RPGs are guilty of this, east and west. We've always got these sensitive characters having relationships and going on about hope and ideals and whatnot.. and each of them kills more (mostly identical) people over the course of the game than any ultraviolent action movie. Even with something like Persona, where you're killing demons instead of people, it's just not believable. Anyone who hacks their sword through the bodies of countless enemies is gonna be a complete psychological mess if they were ever anything more than a cold-blooded killer in the first place.

Planescape: Torment did it better than any of the stuff they mentioned, anyway. I'm getting sick of everyone holding up Dragon Age and Mass Effect as shining examples of storytelling. They're about as good as a crappy summer blockbuster, which, admittedly, is pretty solid for a video game nowadays.

If I killed someone, even in self-defense, I'd be pretty fucked up. Maybe I'm a hardened soldier with impeccable training and conditioning, but in that case, I'd act like one, and I wouldn't be a very appealing leading man if I was thrust into a video game plot. If I made witty one-liners as I mowed down the enemy dudes, I'd be a pretty creepy character, and not too easy to identify with in a typical "we're the good and idealistic heroes" story. If I went back to camp and started talking about how I love fancy Orlesian shoes, it wouldn't be believable at all. It'd be kinda like a really bad movie.. which is all we're gonna get if games keep "storytelling" the way they have been.

Basically, violence is one form of conflict. All stories (or at least a *huge* majority of them) have conflict, but in video games it's almost always violence, and if there's some other kind of struggle or conflict, it's resolved through violence anyway. If stories lacking conflict became prevalent or popular, it would require a major shift in how humans view the world, but it shouldn't be so tough to remove, or at least greatly tone down, the violence.

Or, just make a hyper-violent game that's proud of what it is. Just don't load it with story and cutscenes in an attempt to convince me that my mass-murdering space marine has feelings.

couldn't agree more. In some way, you could go further into theorizing that some people invests into these kind of violent games in order to make us accept the violent acts like wars etc, like if it was some NORMAL/regular thing in our world. Or worst, like saying that concentration camps is an acceptable concept.

i believe that some people use it as a manipulative way to transform the general public's opinion, get my meaning?

 

[googleback]

very good. but to the guy that wrote assassins creed 2... fucking fail. I've never seen a story go so off the rails towards the end.

 

[Deacon Cole]

The problem with story in games is the nature of storytelling itself. Story uses the events of life to make a piece of art. Like how a sculptor will chisel stone, a storyteller works in life, chipping away the parts that are not needed to focus on the important parts. If you've ever experienced a story that dragged it means the teller did not do this properly and should have cut some of that material out.

Story is usually fashioned after the events had occurred. When something interesting happens to you, you edit you memory and the telling to focus on the most important parts while discarding the stretches of time where little or nothing actually happens.

Games do not work like this. The story is told as it happens and as such tends to have all of those boring stretches where nothing happens.

Imagine reading a novel where the protagonist is running around hunting for the last audiolog the F.A.Q. said had to be around here. It would likely be pretty dull and even if this were written by a skilled writer, it would likely be entertaining despite what's actually going on. While the character runs around, he might be going over some unrelated philosophical question or conversing with another character over the radio. It would be interesting because of this other thing while the search for the audiolog happens in the background.

Bioshock may be one of the better uses of story in a game that I have encounters. And the story doesn't really happen while you're playing. You collect it in the form of those audiologs. You aren't playing this story. You are being told this story as you play. You could listen to the audiologs without even playing the game. it is separate for play.

Bioshock does use another technique that is more in line with amusement park fun houses than storytelling. It sets up triggers and the like that go off when the player makes a particular action or moves into a specific location. In the medical ward, you find an audiolog on a table and then when you turn around, an enemy is standing right behind you. These contrived events do actually add to the play experience. I'm not sure if they're a good idea, but they are effective.

Ultimately, I think that storytelling in games is still not well understood. It is a different medium in that the events cannot be edited into a suitable story. It is like watching an entire season of a sport as opposed to the highlight reel shown at the end of the year. This is an apt analogy as the highlights reel shows the most important or most interesting parts of a match or season while leaving out the rest where the game is still being played, but not nearly as interesting or important. If there's a flag on a play and the referees spend twenty minutes reviewing the instant replay, you get to experience all twenty of those minutes watching the game, but not in the highlights. This is an important feature to playing a game and how to make a story in it.

 

[Darkauthor81]

I think the reason why story telling is coming back to the forefront is because

1: graphics are hitting a plateau. To push them any further would be too expensive. Until games become more mainstream, thus more sales and bigger revenue, graphics are mostly going to stay at this level. So the focus has shifted from "omg graphics!" to story to sell a game.

2: Gamers are getting older and older their sensibilities move past explosions, graphics, and tea bagging. They've been there, they've done that, they want more.