Lets talk about games and the lack of good stories

[4RM3D]

Stories in games have always been an issue, as I see it. Part of that comes from how we view a story. We always seem to compare it to a movie or series. JRPGs are a famous example. You got some fighting, then a story sequence, some more fighting, and another story sequence and so on and so forth. There where a lot of old (point and click) adventure games with a good story, but those suffer from the same issue. Rub two things together, story sequence, pull lever, story sequence. You could say this also applies to most shooters, let's say, Battlefield and Call of Duty, but those actually don't really have a story. No, it's more of an excuse of a story just to move players forward with a given purpose. It would be nice to actually see a shooter (or any game) going further than just shooting. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Can't we incorporate a story into a game? For that to be possible the story has to be dynamic, instead of the static stories that are told now. But what does this mean? The problem is that games want to tell a story and push the player forward, but in order to do that the game has to take control in certain situations to move forward. Is that really necessary or just lazy programming?

Another problem is that when given freedom (a choice) to people all these choices must be scripted which takes a lot of work. But is there no other way to tell a story?

Let's take a look at Mass Effect and Bioshock...

Bioware (who made Mass Effect) is known for its story and character driven games. But did they really incorporate the story into the game? Mass Effect can almost be translated onto the big screen 1-on-1. It seems Bioware made a movie script, rather than a game script. You have two obvious paths and that is it. If one of those scripts where made into a movie, the critics will probably describe it as a dime-a-dozen mediocre sci-fi. But in 'game land' the game is hailed because of its great story. Did we really set the bar for story in games that low or is something else going on?

The only shooter I can think of that innovated story telling is Bioshock 1 (not part 2, it sucked). Bioshock is a good example of how to incorporate story into a game. You are immediately dropped into the world of Rapture. The story being told through recording and other findings. As you progress you learn about the world. You are not held back by unnecessary sequences. Because of this, the game has a better flow (among other things). It's still somewhat linear. But the story telling and game world really did raise the bar here.

Another quick example is Bastion, which uses a narrator to tell the story. The same narrator also comments on your playing style, which gives a different kind of immersion. In short, the game is awesome.

But the award of best incorporated story goes to...

Spoiler

The Witcher 2

No, the game ain't perfect, the story isn't perfect. But wow, it revolutionized the way stories are being told in games. Yes, on some points the game still takes control of your character. But that is after you have chosen a path. The story is the most dynamic I have seen in a game. I won't spoil it here. Play it for yourself.

Ah, fortunately there are still studios out that can write good stories into games. However those are only a few. I haven't played every game out there, but of the many games I did play, I have noticed that the story in games haven't evolved much (with the few exceptions). Most stories are still simple, straight forward and static.

What are your thoughts on this? Have you played any games (recently) that incorporate a story into the game in an interesting way? If so, which games?

 

[Otaku World Order]

The thing about Bioshock and Bioshock 2 is that they have opposite problems when it comes to the story. In Bioshock, Jack is a pretty blank slate up until that surprisingly stupid "twist". Delta on the other hand feels like a sympathetic character the more we learn about his background. So, Bioshock has the better story, but Bioshock 2 has the better protagonist.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, I think that Witcher 2 did have one of the better stories I've seen in a game. I'm not convinced it revolutionized anything, because it didn't do anything all that revolutionary. It was very good writing for a game, however - I'd compare it in quality (and subject matter, actually) to the TV version of Game of Thrones. In terms of structure, however, it's not very different from your standard Bioware RPG formula - you play a character, you select dialogue options in a linear-branching story, you make choices, the choices have consequences, etc.

In terms of a game that actually did something different with storytelling*, I'd have to go with Devil Survivor. For those unfamiliar with it, the storytelling method was basically your standard JRPG sort of thing - except that everything you did (other than level-grinding) took in-game time. Certain things would happen in certain times and places, and bad things would happen to major characters (preventing certain story arcs) if you didn't show up at the right time to stop them from happening. Moreover, throughout the entire game you're on a time limit until the world ends, and you don't have enough time in that time limit to explore every option.

So what this did was essentially create a non-linear, story-driven RPG with heavy choice & consequence mechanics. You're completely free to pursue one of many options for how you progress through the story, and have a great deal of flexibility in what order you do things. But at the same time, everything you do has an opportunity cost. Maybe following up on a lead left by character X will help you prevent the apocalypse or learn something important, but if you follow up on that lead you're burning daylight and possibly closing other options. It's a very cool way to tell a story in an RPG, and one I wish more games would use.

*not saying this is revolutionary, either - Majora's Mask and Fallout did something similar, and although I don't own a PS2, I'm pretty sure Persona 3/4 did as well.

 

[4RM3D]

In terms of a game that actually did something different with storytelling*, I'd have to go with Devil Survivor. For those unfamiliar with it, the storytelling method was basically your standard JRPG sort of thing - except that everything you did (other than level-grinding) took in-game time. Certain things would happen in certain times and places, and bad things would happen to major characters (preventing certain story arcs) if you didn't show up at the right time to stop them from happening. Moreover, throughout the entire game you're on a time limit until the world ends, and you don't have enough time in that time limit to explore every option.

So what this did was essentially create a non-linear, story-driven RPG with heavy choice & consequence mechanics. You're completely free to pursue one of many options for how you progress through the story, and have a great deal of flexibility in what order you do things. But at the same time, everything you do has an opportunity cost. Maybe following up on a lead left by character X will help you prevent the apocalypse or learn something important, but if you follow up on that lead you're burning daylight and possibly closing other options. It's a very cool way to tell a story in an RPG, and one I wish more games would use.

That game sounds interesting. Reminds me of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona.

*google*

Oh, lol... It is Shin Megami Tensei. And damn, NDS... That explains why I haven't heard about it yet.

Also, that brings up another problem in games with the story. The games are not time driven but event driven. You trigger an event to move to the next set. If you don't trigger the event, then you could spent the rest of your live running around in the same time period. Although, having event driven games is a more practical decision, than one that holds the story back. But you could create an interesting game mechanic where the game itself isn't very long, but the world around you keeps moving. Then you have to replay the game to see all possibilities. To put it extremely simple: Groundhog Day. Oh, that sounds awesome.

 

[4RM3D]

....are we talking now or what?

Care to elaborate?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The only shooter I can think of that innovated story telling is Bioshock 1 (not part 2, it sucked). Bioshock is a good example of how to incorporate story into a game. You are immediately dropped into the world of Rapture. The story being told through recording and other findings. As you progress you learn about the world. You are not held back by unnecessary sequences. Because of this, the game has a better flow (among other things). It's still somewhat linear. But the story telling and game world really did raise the bar here.

But Bioshock's story still sucked, it was so nonsensical. Gaming just needs higher quality writing instead of the crap we get now. It's sad that Platinum Games actually does some of the better writing in the industry, they know that they aren't great at writing and they make the video game equivalent to awesome B-movies. They don't try to pen some epic story with great character development and fail like basically everyone else. Uncharted 3's story tried to be all serious and it failed horribly because the writing was just poor.

I'm all for making game storytelling more interactive but it doesn't make sense for every game to be told through radio messages and audio diaries like Bioshock. There's nothing wrong with standard cut-scenes either in my book. If you have a scene where one of the characters gets emotional with watery eyes, you'd miss that moment most likely if it wasn't a cut-scene. I hate games that let you just walk about while another character talks, you actually can't do nothing but walk around, I'd rather have great static cinematography than that any day. Most of the time I try to position the camera in a cinematic way during those scenes so just give the fucking cut-scene.

Gaming is a unique medium due to its interactivity and that should be taken advantage of; however, there's no reason why gaming can't utilize what works great in other mediums either. I'd say interactive storytelling should only be used if it is indeed a most effective way to convey the scene.

Lastly, I think ICO and Shadow of the Colossus have done great things for interactive storytelling. You really grow to care about Yorda in ICO and the horse in Shadow of the Colossus more than the 90+% of other video game characters.

 

[Eve Charm]

It's not really the lack of good stories it's people wanting to be spoon fed the story. People praise Bioshock for reading you the story itself rather then asking you to read a text scroll? Bastion is basically someone watching you play a game and commenting on it amusingly and that's a story?

It's people forgetting that Gameplay itself is story and that some Role-playing games, mostly the WRPGS that give you the blank character, actually want you to Role-play yourself some to get that interesting story. Or hell get a friend drunk and make him tell you what your doing as you play a game ;p

 

[4RM3D]

But Bioshock's story still sucked, it was so nonsensical. Gaming just needs higher quality writing instead of the crap we get now. It's sad that Platinum Games actually does some of the better writing in the industry, they know that they aren't great at writing and they make the video game equivalent to awesome B-movies. They don't try to pen some epic story with great character development and fail like basically everyone else. Uncharted 3's story tried to be all serious and it failed horribly because the writing was just poor.

I'm all for making game storytelling more interactive but it doesn't make sense for every game to be told through radio messages and audio diaries like Bioshock. There's nothing wrong with standard cut-scenes either in my book. If you have a scene where one of the characters gets emotional with watery eyes, you'd miss that moment most likely if it wasn't a cut-scene. I hate games that let you just walk about while another character talks, you actually can't do nothing but walk around, I'd rather have great static cinematography than that any day. Most of the time I try to position the camera in a cinematic way during those scenes so just give the fucking cut-scene.

Yeah, cut scenes can still be used in games. They can make a great addition, but studios seem to really rely on them too much.

As for Bioshock... I couldn't find a better shooter that incorporates a good story. But I actually just remembered one: Deus Ex. Although that is more about story than story mechanics.

 

[Zen Toombs]

-snip-

You mention Bioshock and other games as good examples of excellent story told through gaming, but Mass Effect is not because it could be, as you said, translated onto the big screen relatively easily. But could this type of thing not be done with most games?

 

[skywolfblue]

Can't we incorporate a story into a game? For that to be possible the story has to be dynamic, instead of the static stories that are told now.

What is so wrong with static stories? Some of the best stories in games have been told through static stories. Half Life 2 has a static story, Red Dead Redemption has a static story, Starcraft has a static story, etc...

But what does this mean? The problem is that games want to tell a story and push the player forward, but in order to do that the game has to take control in certain situations to move forward. Is that really necessary or just lazy programming?

It's needed. The game needs to have control over the plot after a fashion, otherwise the story falls apart. Scripted Events are virtually essential to creating a good narrative. Even RPGs that offer many choices still have scripted events to drive the story forward.

Like you said Audio Diaries would be kinda neat to see in more games. But that's more of a "we encourage you to explore this place and the story background more", it doesn't change the main overarching plot.

 

[toolateforsundown]

What is so wrong with static stories? Some of the best stories in games have been told through static stories. Half Life 2 has a static story, Red Dead Redemption has a static story, Starcraft has a static story, etc...

While there is nothing wrong with static stories, they don't take advantage of everything the interactive medium has to offer. Either would be just as moving or impressive as the other if done properly. Dynamic story telling is just a comparatively new mode (in the mass-produced sense; it's actually the oldest, otherwise), so it's getting a lot of attention at present, and is going to be the target of innovation for a while.

It's near impossible to identify exactly why good stories in video games are so rare, but I'd be quick to cite the focus on "excitement" and making everything pretty. The sort of relentless action people tend to call "exciting" I find artificial as it is, and at the hack-and-slash-war-simulator extremes just plain boring, but that could just be because I derive enjoyment from tension and character development. Just from that, you could probably guess I favor role-playing games, but even those suffer from grinding disease. Needs more role-playing, less random killing.

I'd also suggest the very people going into game design, especially of late, are the exact sort of people that wouldn't be very good at writing, for reasons related to what I mentioned above. I could ramble on further, but I think I'd just reiterate the same points...

In short: too much violence, not enough dramatic tension.

 

[Veylon]

Also, that brings up another problem in games with the story. The games are not time driven but event driven. You trigger an event to move to the next set. If you don't trigger the event, then you could spent the rest of your live running around in the same time period. Although, having event driven games is a more practical decision, than one that holds the story back. But you could create an interesting game mechanic where the game itself isn't very long, but the world around you keeps moving. Then you have to replay the game to see all possibilities. To put it extremely simple: Groundhog Day. Oh, that sounds awesome.

This. Very much this. It's absolutely absurd to have the whole plot come to a screeching halt so that the PCs can grind or collect trinkets or whatever. If there's an army on the warpath or a comet falling from the sky or corruption spreading throughout the Earth, there ought to be some consequences to ignoring it and gallivanting around self-indulgently instead.

 

[Vault101]

I dont think theres a "right or worng" way for game stoies...

skyrim or red dead have very different aproaches, neither it better than the other

some prefer the freedom to create their own storys..some prefer having some focus/direction to tell a specific story, I personally prefer the red dead aproach

 

[Lilani]

I think the problem is we've come to expect stories so much from our games that developers are terrified of not having them. So even if they're shoehorned in or not very well thought out, they have something to tie the events and scenarios of the game together. Soul Calibur is like this--I really don't think too many people care THAT much about the stories in Soul Calibur, as they've been the same since the very first game. Good people are after the Soul Calibur to defeat the Soul Edge, bad people are after the Soul Edge to defeat the Soul Calibur. And a few of them have their relationship quirks (Nightmare and Siegfried, Ivy and Cervantes, etc.) but as far as I know the results are usually ambiguous and nothing ever really gets solved between them.

I love the gameplay of Soul Calibur, but the stories are always so inconclusive and predictable it's almost an insult whenever you get to the end. But to imagine finding a way to make the game work without a story is a bit daunting, and the games still sell like hotcakes, so Capcom won't be changing their formula anytime soon. Personally, I'd like to see Soul Calibur with a more roaming and open-ended format, rather than the "fork in the road" destination choice system that always leads to the same place.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

Nobody's gonna like this but Metal Gear. There are cut-scenes like no other but in no way does it sacrifice story for game-play. Yes it does it very old fashioned but the cut-scenes never feel like a waste of time, It tells a complete story every game no matter what.

 

[Drave]

Bioshock didn't innovate shit, it mostly cribbed it's delivery from System shock 2. it did change the main mode of gameplay from adventure horror to FPS however so I guess you could call that "inovation" if you tried hard enough.

anyway, I haven't played the witcher 2, but the first game's story telling is brilliant so if the second is a refinement of that with the same caliber of writing it's definitely way up there.

 

[skywolfblue]

What is so wrong with static stories? Some of the best stories in games have been told through static stories. Half Life 2 has a static story, Red Dead Redemption has a static story, Starcraft has a static story, etc...

While there is nothing wrong with static stories, they don't take advantage of everything the interactive medium has to offer. Either would be just as moving or impressive as the other if done properly. Dynamic story telling is just a comparatively new mode (in the mass-produced sense; it's actually the oldest, otherwise), so it's getting a lot of attention at present, and is going to be the target of innovation for a while.

Fair enough.

It's near impossible to identify exactly why good stories in video games are so rare, but I'd be quick to cite the focus on "excitement" and making everything pretty. The sort of relentless action people tend to call "exciting" I find artificial as it is, and at the hack-and-slash-war-simulator extremes just plain boring, but that could just be because I derive enjoyment from tension and character development. Just from that, you could probably guess I favor role-playing games, but even those suffer from grinding disease. Needs more role-playing, less random killing.

I'd also suggest the very people going into game design, especially of late, are the exact sort of people that wouldn't be very good at writing, for reasons related to what I mentioned above. I could ramble on further, but I think I'd just reiterate the same points...

In short: too much violence, not enough dramatic tension.

I agree with you here. Either the studios hire bad writers because they spent all their money on the CG budget, or good writers end up shoehorned by being constantly overridden by the upper management into making it more "buzzworthy". The industry is too obsessed with action, and forgot about pacing.

It's hard to tell a compelling story without proper build up or non-combat moments to introduce the player to the world and the characters in it. Good games like Half Life 2 or Red Dead Redemption take breaks from the action from time to time, to introduce new things about the world (i.e large sections of the Citadel (HL2) are you stuck rather helplessly being carried along in a pod, and when Marston (RDR) walks into a new zone he takes time to meet and talk with the locals first).

 

[skywolfblue]

-forum acting weird, double post-