Lets talk about games and the lack of good stories

[Krion_Vark]

Bioshock 1 was bad story telling because they defined linear story in the game world and then ignored it. The only reason you played up to that point was against your will and after they explained this it became a plot-hole that the second half of the game offered no choice.

If you are talking about the fact that you are controlled by the term Would you kindly as a plot whole because you aren't controlled in the second half. It actually gets rid of that plot whole right after Andrew Ryan's office.
If that is not what you are talking about please elaborate.

 

[Dfskelleton]

The thing with games today is that so much money is being put into the graphics, the story and gameplay fall short. A good, recent example: RAGE. It's visuals are stunning, but as far as any good reason why I should be doing what these characters in silly outfits tell me to, nada.
I like big, interesting, complex stories, like that of the Metal Gear Solid games, but I don't mind simple stories either. Here's another good example: Doom. It's not exactly Atlas Shrugged, but everything you need is right there: "Those are demons, they want to kill you, here's a chainsaw, do whatever you want. I really don't care, as long as you press the big red button at the end of the level"
Oh, and before I forget:

Pretty much any Zelda game (except, of course, a certain few spinoffs that shall remain nameless)

NEVER FORGET

[h4]NEVER[/h4]

 

[dimensional]

I have never really had a problem with stories in video games in my opinion a lot of them have a great story sense in that when I have finished them I feel like I have gone on some sort of journey which is something films have a hard time doing IMO.

Usually when I go into a game I have certain conceptions of what to expect i.e I dont buy metal gear and then complain it is cutscene heavy or buy mario and complain about the crap story, sure computer games can offer up different ways to tell stories but it shouldnt ignore old established techniques just because it can do something different.

Many films still use monologues or scenes where people are just sat around talking, this could be done just as easily and arguably more effectively in a book (as you can use your imagination adding your own interpretation rather than watching the actors interpretation of the lines).

I have just finished Persona 4 recently and I feel that had a great story even though a lot of it was outside gameplay with me just watching a picture of animated models occasionally giving limited gestures on screen before a speech bubble and portrait pops up for the next talky bit to advance the plot.

Some games of course dont really need story usually just some small motivation for your actions i.e mario (again) princess kidnapped go rescue princess or soul calibur, magic swords people want magic swords, fight for magic swords this works perfectly well and adding to much story would likely ruin the formula in these games. Also of course the more options that are open the less reliant on a single facet products are.

 

[Crazedc00k]

My favorite gaming stories are the ones that just happen. Minecraft, Mount and Blade, Dwarf fortress, Elder Scrolls, sim games. They seem to evolve organically and creatively, and they become deeply personal. That's pretty much what games can do other media can't.

 

[4RM3D]

your talking about the same hollywood that put out AVATAR

Hey, Avatar is an awesome movie. The story just wasn't as good as the rest of the movie. Nonetheless Avatar was a milestone in movie making.

(Avatar, not to be confused with Avatar: The Last Airbender).

Avatar was just Pocahontas with blue people in space. but visually it was pretty.

Well, like I said the story wasn't as good. But it still works for the movie.

I dunno, I have to disagree. I don't think Mass Effect would be hailed as a "dime a dozen" sci fi movie. The dialog is far better written than most sci fi movies that get released these days. You seem to think it's badly written; gonna have to completely disagree on that one. But that's not surprising as I felt Avatar was one of the most poorly written movies of the past decade. Groundbreaking in visual effects, to be sure, but a simply atrocious script. And I usually like James Cameron's writing. So, we clearly have different tastes.

I said I like Avatar, but not because of its story. Because we are talking about story here, Avatar is not on the list. Also, I still find the story of Mass Effect interesting, but I get the feeling that it would become a mediocre sci-fi movie in Hollywood terms.

The thing with games today is that so much money is being put into the graphics, the story and gameplay fall short.

I remember a period in gaming when 3D broke through for the first time. Since that time, especially in the early days, all the money went into pretty graphics, leaving the other elements behind. But I thought we would be over this by now. There is nothing wrong with using graphics like in Bastion.

 

[woodaba]

The thing with Mass Effect, and so many RPGs for that matter, is that they thrive on playing the role of the character. I disagree when you say that there are only two paths to take. The Paragon/Renegade system is stupid, and is something games really need to grow out of, but games like KOTOR, Mass Effect, Planescape, Fallout all succeed based on the fact that they allow the player to carve thier own path through the story, something that adds quite a lot more weight to the story. You're right: if Mass Effect was a movie it probably would be remembered as a above average sci-fi action flick. However, the ability to decide who lives and who dies, the actions and motivations of the protagonist, and their relationship with the characters that adds greater weight to the story. That, I feel, is why these games, and many games like it, such as Shin Megami Tensei, Oddworld, Arcanum, and its ilk succeed.

 

[karoliso]

I'd be more concerned with games turning into movies with little gameplay. You know, GAMEplay?

 

[putowtin]

I like a game to have a good, solid storyline though I'm not expecting the depths of the Count of Monte Cristo or the Divine Comedy (Dante?s Inferno doesn't count, it took one of the most famous poems in history and dumped shit all over it) but I have enjoyed the story line in the mass effect games, KotOR (still one of gaming's best twists), inFamous 1 & 2 and the Assassin's Creed series.

At the end of the day though, sometimes you want to play the gaming equivalent of a tacky blockbuster movie, you know, just blow the crap out for something for a few hours!

 

[Darkmantle]

that first twist was incredible, it changed the whole experience immediately. It put a unique spin on the linear story model, it was awesome and not stupid in any way, it was very well thought out.

Truth. However, IMO it would have been even more impressive if the game changed the way it was structured once

Spoiler

Jack gets un-conditioned.

It stays more or less as linear as it was, which is a disappointment IMO.

yeah, they definitely could have took it farther for much better effect

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

*looks at avatar*

*two thumbs up*

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Warcraft 3 has one of the best stories ever told in a video game. Even though it's the good ol' trope of uniting against a common threat, it has fully realized characters, all with their own goals and personalities, gives a perspective from all of the sides, and has a really awesome plot twist that people have come to take for granted. And the most awesomest narrator ever anywhere, Medivh. Sorry, Morgan Freeman.

Agreed. Warcraft III does not only have the best story, it's the best strategy game period.

 

[Carl The Manicorn]

I think that games seem to be lacking in great stories. It feels like games and the industry as a whole is more interested in a better multiplayer experince than a cohesive story. I don't want to play a game that only functions as a online "hey let's go shoot some people and call everyone else faggots" game. I would like to enjoy a rich, moving experince that makes me go, "Wow! I'm glad I poured out the sixty bucks for this!".

 

[Joccaren]

Now, I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here.

Bioshock was a very linear story, and things like those radio diaries, whilst somewhat interesting, didn't do a lot to change that. They were more atmosphere, which the ME games did as well, one of the things actually better done in 2 IMO, but allowed to player to interact with some. Backstories were told through the Codex, or through news reports, a way more suited to the futuristic theme of Mass Effect. Mass Effect's story is praised thanks to its relative non-linearness. It isn't as linear as some games, yet still has you working towards an end. That end has not yet come, and will be coming in ME3, which will make things interesting.

This is, of course, coming out of the side of your argument that looks in favour of open ended stories, in which case the best type of game would be a narrated LoaP style game. LoaP being life of a peasant, a WC3 mod (I hated the LoaP titles, however there were some maps with a similar idea, that were far better executed). In such games, you could do basically anything, take any job, do any thing, and just... play. No goal, no end game. Just play. With a narrator, that is the most open ended game you can get.

The thing is, they get boring, rather fast. A game needs a goal for its story, some end for you to work towards. As such, the game must be somewhat linear. Without a somewhat linear progression, there is no agency for the player, no reason for them to keep playing.

As such, the best story in a game for you would be one that is open ended and linear in a certain balance. Something Mass Effect might end up filling once its final game is out and the whole series is taken into account as the one big story that it is.

The thing that confuses me, however, is your praise of Bioshock's story. The twist was masterful, and is among my top ten gaming moments, but the story itself isn't so great. The backstory to the world is good and interesting, but the story you act out isn't so much. The atmosphere is good, but the story is rather lacking. It is linear at its finest, and apart from the two options: Save the girls or kill them (Or save some and kill some, which resulted in the same ending as kill all but with a sad tone instead of an angry one) with two endings based entirely off these two actions. The story in Bioshock is quite the opposite of what it seems you would like - as it is incredibly linear, but it allows some exploration of the atmosphere and the area you are in.

The closest I can get to this is that you like the atmosphere of Bioshock, but not necessarily the story, and like the more open ended story types. Admittedly, the two together would be quite a nice game. Great atmosphere and great story, but I do not see what about the story in Bioshock is so great. It is linear, straightforward, and largely just an excuse to move forward and shoot things. The twist is amazing, but other than that the story is your basic 'Your trapped in a scary place, find a way out' story.

 

[4RM3D]

*snip*

When I was referring to Bioshock I was comparing it to other shooters. Compared to those, Bioshock still stands out. But it seems most great stories are found in RPGs and (old school) adventure games.

It has been a while since I have played Mass Effect, so I can't exactly recall the fine details. I have to play it again, before I go into the details. Then again, Mass Effect 3 is coming soon. So we will just have to see how everything pans out.

As for linear versus open world, there is a rather nice recent example: The Witcher 2 vs Skyrim. The Witcher 2 is smaller and more linear, but with a good story and still has somewhat of an open world feeling. While Skyrim is fully open world with a simple story, but a lot of small mini-stories (quests).

Another older example would be that of Planescape: Torment vs Baldur's Gate II. The latter was almost fully open world (minus 1 story arc). While the former was more linear, but still had an open world. Planescape: Torment had an awesome story. What was special about the story (among other things) is that it doesn't automatically tell you everything. There is a massive amount of back story directly tied into the main story you have to discover for yourself. If you "speedrun" the game, you miss about 70% of the main story.

Now lets see: Skyrim vs Planescape: Torment...
What I would like in Skyrim is the extra quests outside of the main quest to have more impact in the world. Either weave some of the quests into the main story line or give it some sort of consequence in the world. *points to Planescape: Torment*

 

[Feylynn]

Bioshock 1 was bad story telling because they defined linear story in the game world and then ignored it. The only reason you played up to that point was against your will and after they explained this it became a plot-hole that the second half of the game offered no choice.

If you are talking about the fact that you are controlled by the term Would you kindly as a plot whole because you aren't controlled in the second half. It actually gets rid of that plot whole right after Andrew Ryan's office.
If that is not what you are talking about please elaborate.

I am indeed referring to the mental conditioning phrase, which the revelation of would have made for a great ending.
But then the game continued meandering on for no good reason over the course of another couple hours.

But specifically I meant that because it defined that Video Game linearity as only existing due to the mental conditioning your character was designed to follow, the second half of the game became extremely jarring and immersion shattering. It undermined the fact that it existed in the first place because nothing at all changed after you were rid of it.

I was playing the survivalist path harvesting every sister I came across and every bit of media surrounding the game had played on its design being very much about 'choice'. The two problems that rose from this for me, are there was no reason for the sisters to help me, that was lazy and would have been far better story telling to give me consequences. Also, I didn't hate Fontaine. He offered to let me join him while I was under no compulsion from anyone else and now free to make my own decisions, or so I wished, because I would have joined him.

The solutions would have been to-
a: Consequences based on your choices with the little sisters and a quest line and choice for joining Fontaine.
b: Make the twist the ending or very close to it thus reducing the development strain of having to represent free will for the second half of it.
c: Not include the twist at all that made "No Free Will" and "Free Will" the exact same thing as reinforced by game mechanics. (Bad idea though and would have robbed a defining aspect from the game)
d: Not include a useless "Harvest or Save" mechanic that had absolutely no impact on the story and only served to further strain the suspension of disbelief with a story centering around stolen free will. Without the choice to harvest it would have been assumable that Jack as a character was of a nature on his own to confront Fontaine on principal.
The Evil route though does not give this support. It portrays Jack as an opportunist and survivalist that would have taken Fontaine's offer rather then risking his life for no particular gain. He could have used that partnership to get anything he wanted.

I recommend "D".
It would have been the cheapest and easiest fix sacrificing very little actual gameplay to do it. The Sisters would have changed to be more of a "collectible".
Saving them is 'good' as reinforced mechanically by more effort gives you more Adam.

Sorry, I really really tried to keep this short and to the point but I'm finding it hard to narrow the focus of the post any more right now. It really was a lot of small things adding up that made a lot of the game not work for me.

 

[orangeban]

Half-Life 2 did an exceptional job of intergrating story into gameplay. Admittedly, it has a very simple story (stop the Combine pretty much sums it up) but think of when you first step off the train into City 17. At no point are you told, "OMG Dystopian future!" instead you have to put it together by looking at the setting and people around you. Very clever. Plus the writing was good, which is always a plus.

Amnesia: The Dark Descent handled it pretty well too.

Now, the problem you mention about writers treating games like films is a genuine one. But I think another problem is the lack of maturity in a lot of games writing right now. Developers/producers are terrified of incorporating complex themes or ideas into their stories, in case the player doesn't get it. Instead they make stories that are EPIC and BADASS and OMGEXPLOSION!!! (see most modern shooters) so the player's brain doesn't turn off or, god forbid, contemplate not shooting for a bit.

Hand-in-hand with that problem, is the fact that a lot of people don't seem to think gamers care about stories, that's why we get set-piece centred design (also a symptom of the maturity problem up there), because they just want to give us cool stuff.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

As for Fallout: New Vegas there are three issues.
1) The main story is too simple and straight forward and lacks an 'epic' build up.
2) Also your actions don't reflect much on the main story. You have two sides to choose from, but that's about it.
3) The world doesn't really evolve with you.

EDIT: I still like the game and I still like the game world. But as far as the story goes, it's too basic and straightforward.

1)As I said, it couldn't have been a complicated story simply because of the number of variables you could change. So yes it was simple; but then, many good stories are.
2) You're kidding. You decide how the entire conflict resolves itself. How is that not "reflecting on the main story"? Also there are technically 4 factions, not 2. And there's a lot of wiggle room between those 4 factions too. You can free the wasteland, but still burn it down, or you can support Caesar but still be a nice dude. It's not a binary choice like... well, almost every other choice-based game sadly.
3)They could've done more work with this, I'll give you that. For example I found a mod that changes Primm (I think) into a tightly run NCR stronghold, if you choose to hand it over to the NCR. That shouldn't have been a mod. That's how it should've worked in game. But I mean I never said it was perfect. In fact F:NV was far from perfect. But I'm just saying it got the concept right!

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

my point is you'd be writing off ALOT of games has having sub-par storys because they dont offer you choice (thats what Im reading it as anyway)

anway that isnt to say I enjoy choice now and again, I do, but that just me...generally Ill choose one way and stick with it, because (again if its a good/bad thing) Like I've barely deveated from doing the same thing in Mass effect...I couldnt play a renegade shepard being shepard ISNT renegade in my eyes, or in a agem in Fallout 3 where it makes NO bloody sense to be evil, Infamous it probably being evil makes sense...but I probably couldnt do it

but then you get games with fallout NV, which is good because it actually offers a variety of interesting paths to take...but anyway Im going off topic there

Oh no no I'm not writing off anything. I love Assassin's Creed and wish I had enough money left to buy Revelations. I even love it's story in spite of the fact that, as you say, it could've been perfectly translated to a film....1 film that would take me 10 bucks and 2 hours to watch, instead of 5 games that would take me 200 dollars (I couldn't buy them in the steam sale) and over 150 hours to play. And for Assassin't Creed, the linearity is completely understandable. They are weaving a plot through faux historical events that give them very little room to make shit up and still be plausible. They couldn't have added much choice into it like New Vegas did.

 

[4RM3D]

2) You're kidding. You decide how the entire conflict resolves itself. How is that not "reflecting on the main story"? Also there are technically 4 factions, not 2. And there's a lot of wiggle room between those 4 factions too. You can free the wasteland, but still burn it down, or you can support Caesar but still be a nice dude. It's not a binary choice like... well, almost every other choice-based game sadly.

I guess that is true. But it feels... -how should I put it- fragmented. I guess this is just a precursor to point 3 I've mentioned.

anway that isnt to say I enjoy choice now and again, I do, but that just me...generally Ill choose one way and stick with it, because (again if its a good/bad thing) Like I've barely deveated from doing the same thing in Mass effect...

I saw this bit of text pop up in another quote and I just had to mention something.

Yes, most will follow one path in Mass Effect (2). And in that game it is also very easy to follow that path. You know in advance which answer leads to which path. I think it is appropriate to mention the game has been dumbed down (no, not streamlined) to make it easy to follow. Fortunately, it seems to work for Mass Effect, more or less.

But if you want a true experience with multiple shades of gray. Well, then you have to look elsewhere and you have to look very hard. Because very little games offer this experience nowadays and even fewer present it in such a way the answer (or path) isn't always clear. In that case you can't follow just one path. No, you have to choose what you think is best. The only recent game that did this was The Witcher 2.

And that is a whole different level of storytelling...