Storytelling in Games

[TiefBlau]

The general consensus on this forum seems to be that storytelling MUST be this thing that you have to make sure doesn't interfere with gameplay for fear that IT MIGHT BE *GASP* BORING TO WATCH, but I can't bring myself to agree with this.

I do agree though, that there are bad ways to integrate story and good was to integrate story. Take for example, Killzone 3, Bad Company 2, or Final Fantasy XIII. Their multiplayer is fine, but their campaigns are boring as fuck. Every 5 minutes, they have to slap your hands away from the controller (keyboard?) so they can show you a cutscene about their own half-baked story and drop you in a new location for the next short battle, and they do this every fucking time. Some time when I was playing Killzone 3 co-op with my brother, I was reminded of those arcade rail shooters like House of the Dead, where they move you from place to place along a single linear path and have to have a cutscene every few minutes to separate levels, and I thought to myself, "Boy, gaming has evolved fuck all in the past decade."

So yeah, there are wrong ways to do storytelling.

But I disagree with how people see the concept of video game stories itself. Nevermind those irritating folks that say logically bullshit things like "IF I WANTED A STORY I'D READ A BOOK." The majority of people seem to believe that story is something that needs to step aside for the gameplay, and that the gameplay is the most important part of a game (It's in the word itself, after all, right?) Myself, I'm a big fan of games like visual novels or Heavy Rain that are essentially just stories with minimal gameplay as well as games on the other side of the spectrum like Team Fortress 2 where the storytelling is essentially just character lines and ad campaigns, so I'm a firm believer that the narrative-to-gameplay relationship is something that can take many, many forms and still work.

So what are your thoughts on storytelling? Do you play games for the story? Do you think it should just step aside and never get in the way of the gameplay?

 

[gundamrx101]

I believe more in a balance. Gameplay should always be the strong point of a video games, sure. It's something challenging and rewarding that should give us the urge to keep gripping the controller. As for story, it should be something that invokes us on an emotional level. The gameplay should gives us a constant challenge and the story should makes us emotionally want to see what comes next.

If of course the story is screwed up on, then the gameplay itself SHOULD compinsate. I would say vice cersa, but not too many people would sit through a crappy executed quick time event just to know if the one armed hero will save the sherbert kingdom from the evil dominmatrix.

 

[Vampire cat]

I don't disagree that a game should have a good story, and I don't mind having to watch the occasional cut scene to get filled in on some of the more important bits of it. Thats perfectly fine, the better a story is the... uh. Better.

But when the parts in between the story is boring, the game play, then it's like having to pause your episode of Stargate SG-1 ever 10 minutes to play 7 rounds of pong (and to those that thinks pong is awesome, bad example... It's a good one for me, ok?) before you can continue. It doesn't work. If it IS a visual novel then sure, screw the game play. I would never say that no games focusing on a great story should exist. The thing is, if your making a game, and you intend to have a lot of game play' in that game, you HAVE to make sure it's enjoyable or only the most hardcore fans of whichever universe it's set in will follow it to the end.

It's much easier for a game to be bad due to bad game play than it is due to bad story. If I could have both, I'd gladly say yes, but given the choice I would pick game play. As long as the interaction is great fun I'll survive the 5min toilet breaks that occasionally interrupt my gaming.

I read a lot of fantasy, and I love watching intricate and deep (at times slow) TV series. Give me a good story and you can be assured I'll love it. It's just that when I sit down to play a game, I do so primarily for the interactive part. If I was told on beforehand that I was going to be watching a story told with the odd interactive bit here and there, I might very well enjoy it. But that would be my TV-time, not my game-time.

 

[TheDuckbunny]

I play for the story, but not for the plot. What I enjoy is walking around in a fully realised, fleshed out world. It's immersive, it makes me wander around and explore. It's the only medium that can achieve that level of immersion for me, to be fully immersed in another world. Books and movies are a little more distant, having to tell their stories through other actors and happenings.

 

[Vern5]

Game and story should coexist in peace and harmony, actively pursuing the goal of entertaining the player simultaneously.

I think a decent analogy for the link between play, story, and game is that of a planned threesome.

Having the player only interact with one piece of the overall game at a time gives the impression that the player is actively stepping out on one piece in favor of the other at any given moment. If the player is spending all of his time with story then gameplay becomes jealous and suspicious leading gameplay to be less enjoyable to be around overall. The same works backwards.

However, if both story and gameplay are working in partnership to please the player, then everything is okay for the game and the player especially.

Why settle for okay games that choose story or gameplay when you could have Great games that weave both together?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The general consensus on this forum seems to be that storytelling MUST be this thing that you have to make sure doesn't interfere with gameplay for fear that IT MIGHT BE *GASP* BORING TO WATCH, but I can't bring myself to agree with this.

So what are your thoughts on storytelling? Do you play games for the story? Do you think it should just step aside and never get in the way of the gameplay?

Actually, I play games mostly for the story. Generally, bad/dull gameplay is never a deal breaker for me. I mean, I beat Xenosaga II (worst gameplay ever).

I'm a fan of Bioware, Atlus, and Square Enix because their stories. Even if a few have kind of sucked, by and large they do good work.

 

[Archangel768]

Yea. I also hate how people think that stories should step aside.

I love stories in games and usually seek out the games that focus on telling a story. I also especially enjoy cut scenes in games although I admit that Metal Gear Solid 4 had a bit of a problem. While half the game was literally cut scenes, I don't find that this is particularly the problem. For me the problem was that a lot of the cut scenes were what I call 'Dull'. There was no music, there was nothing interesting going on. The way they told the more complex parts of the stories dragged on too long and were not presented in an interesting way. However, when the cut scenes included good music, action, dramatic stuff (Mission Act 4: Raiden breaks down) I enjoyed those moments quite a bit. The more complex parts of the story probably would have been more interesting to me if I had been playing the other games but, I still think it could have been presented better.

Another complaint I hear is that Final Fantasy XIII was all movies with little game play. Think about it. The game for me took 54 hours to get through the story part. 7 of those hours were cut scenes. That is close to 1 eighth of the game. The rest was game play. In these situations, I find it hard for someone to be 'overwhelmed with too many cut scenes.' I do admit however, Final Fantasy XIII's story didn't pull me in like the others so this may lead to the cut scenes being boring and feeling like there are too many. But, there wasn't much else to do in the game besides walk down some empty area with more monsters to kill. So the combination probably lead to the feeling the there were too many cut scenes where in reality there wasn't many at all compared to game play time.

Anyway, this post has gone a bit off topic, (although it's still discussing one way of integrating stories into games) Probably what I'm trying to say is that I personally really enjoy a good cut scene. It feels even better after I've beaten a boss or something else like making my way through an area and finding the exit, it feels as though I've earned it and achieved something and this awesome cut scene is a reward, a time I can take to relax from my work.

It seems as though many people disagree on this site and prefer a story to be purely integrated into game play like Half Life 2. While I did enjoy Half Life 2 and there were certainly some memorable moments, this to me personally isn't my ideal way of taking in a story.

Also for the people that say, 'if I wanted a story I would go read a book' or 'if I wanted a cut scene I'd go watch a movie.' I disagree. I love the opportunity games have to combine movies and game play together. I love the fact a cut scene can be right before a boss fight, it can show the characters approaching each other with awesome music, things are getting tense, I'm finally able to challenge the bad guy. Then it swaps to game play where I then take control and fight the bad guy myself. Then after defeating him, it moves into another cut scene showing him die. I really enjoy this kind of thing.

An example of this would be in Final Fantasy X (the next paragraph has spoilers)

Yuna is being forced into a situation to marry Seymour and I'm flying towards the wedding in an airship. Since I have been controlling Tidus throughout the duration of the game, it has allowed me to in a sense 'become Tidus'. So while there is a cut scene showing Tidus fly in and slide down that cable to the tower, because of the connection that the game play prior to this has given me to Tidus, when I watch the cut scene even though I'm not in control of him, it feels as though I am flying in to rescue Yuna. Then the game lets you take control and you have to fight your way through soldiers to get to Yuna. This gives me a deep sense of desperation. I need to defeat these soldiers, I need to save Yuna. Then, eventually I'm surrounded and can't do anything. A cut scene follows and shows Yuna jump of the edge of the tower distracting the others allowing me and my friends to get away.

The game play the game provides me gives me a special link to Tidus. It makes me become him. If something happens to him, whatever it is, be it physically or emotionally. It happens to me as well.

The cut scenes in the game then give me a greater view of the action, the music is perfectly timed with what's going on, the camera changes angle showing me things I would never see myself if I were there in real life. The animation of the characters being suited to the music and camera angle. These are all things that can't happen during game play.

For me PERSONALLY (I realise many people here disagree) this is the greatest way to tell a story in the game.

1. The game play gave me a special link with the character (mentioned in detail above)
2. The cut scene allows things to happen in a way that is 'perfect'
3. Most importantly, the cut scene does not (personally for me) break my link to Tidus. What he does in the cut scene, I do. When he flies in to save Yuna, I do it, when he shows his anger when Seymour kisses Yuna, I feel that emotion. Seymour is not only taking Yuna away from Tidus and using her, he is also taking her away from me.

While a movie can achieve a special link between a viewer and the character, I personally believe that games allow an even stronger link to the character that enhances the experience.

And from what I have experienced personally, the combination of game play to create that stronger link to the character and the cut scene to show me the story better then if it were through game play is the perfect way a story can be told to me through video games. It combines the best of both Movies and Games into one amazing experience.

Feel free to disagree with me, I know there are a lot of people here that will.

 

[TiefBlau]

Another complaint I hear is that Final Fantasy XIII was all movies with little game play. Think about it. The game for me took 54 hours to get through the story part. 7 of those hours were cut scenes. That is close to 1 eighth of the game. The rest was game play. In these situations, I find it hard for someone to be 'overwhelmed with too many cut scenes.' I do admit however, Final Fantasy XIII's story didn't pull me in like the others so this may lead to the cut scenes being boring and feeling like there are too many. But, there wasn't much else to do in the game besides walk down some empty area with more monsters to kill. So the combination probably lead to the feeling the there were too many cut scenes where in reality there wasn't many at all compared to game play time.

Well, when you make a Final Fantasy game, people expect things from it. It's an RPG, after all, so gameplay has to play at least a notable element. If you want a rapid departure, like Dirge of Cerberus, it should advertise itself as such.

Though that's not really my main problem. My main beef with FFXIII is that whatever interactivity that it does feature is superfluous and terrible. Like it was just tacked on after Squeenix realized that they can't call it a game if it's composed completely of pre-rendered cutscenes. On our first playthrough of the game, my friend and I have already heard "great" things about gameplay and so we decided to conduct an experiment: By only moving (for the most part) forward and only pressing X, we managed to evade the majority of the enemies we encountered and progressed so far into the game that my friend had to leave before we died once or even encountered any discernable form of difficulty. Everything was so pointless and linear that you know the gameplay wasn't anything besides an excuse to call it a game.

I'm willing to argue that Heavy Rain has even less interactive gameplay than XIII, but the kind of gameplay you engage in is so much more meaningful that FFXIII pales in comparison.

I don't disagree that a game should have a good story, and I don't mind having to watch the occasional cut scene to get filled in on some of the more important bits of it. Thats perfectly fine, the better a story is the... uh. Better.

But when the parts in between the story is boring, the game play, then it's like having to pause your episode of Stargate SG-1 ever 10 minutes to play 7 rounds of pong (and to those that thinks pong is awesome, bad example... It's a good one for me, ok?) before you can continue. It doesn't work. If it IS a visual novel then sure, screw the game play. I would never say that no games focusing on a great story should exist. The thing is, if your making a game, and you intend to have a lot of game play' in that game, you HAVE to make sure it's enjoyable or only the most hardcore fans of whichever universe it's set in will follow it to the end.

It's much easier for a game to be bad due to bad game play than it is due to bad story. If I could have both, I'd gladly say yes, but given the choice I would pick game play. As long as the interaction is great fun I'll survive the 5min toilet breaks that occasionally interrupt my gaming.

I read a lot of fantasy, and I love watching intricate and deep (at times slow) TV series. Give me a good story and you can be assured I'll love it. It's just that when I sit down to play a game, I do so primarily for the interactive part. If I was told on beforehand that I was going to be watching a story told with the odd interactive bit here and there, I might very well enjoy it. But that would be my TV-time, not my game-time.

To some extent I agree. It's the developer's job to advertise the particular gameplay experience that they want to deliver. However, some of this is just due to the fact that developers are beginning to blur the lines between video gaming and other media.

What do you call a program that's interactive but not made for the purpose of entertainment, but rather art? Like Passage? Judging by how many people complain about it, you certainly can't call it a game. But when there's this much gray area, what can you do about it?

And what about video games that really aren't games at all, but interactive movies or virtual choose-your-own adventure books? If you can't call those games, you can't really call those movies, either.

This is the problem with categorizing everything by such strict criteria. I don't consider visual novels games, but I definitely consider Heavy Rain a game, because I feel that the interactive elements make the experience more akin to gaming than to watching a movie. But this is all subjective, and you could end up criticizing something for not being a fun game when it was really intended to be some kind of conceptual art.

 

[Vampire cat]

But this is all subjective, and you could end up criticizing something for not being a fun game when it was really intended to be some kind of conceptual art.

Maybe we should push for an international law demanding game developers add a description on the back of the cover of what the game is intended to be, so that we may know on what basis to judge it? =3

 

[darth.pixie]

I prefer stories in my games and don't really care about how much they take out of the gameplay if the story is captivating enough.

If the story sucks, I'd rather be out killing stuff than following the main quest.

The thing is that the two can coexist. You can tell a story through gameplay. Show, don't tell, you know? It works better for both sides of the argument. However that is harder to do and thus, more rarely done.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I'll be the broken radio and say Fallout: New Vegas. That game perfected the open-world game story. Bravo Obsidian. Fix the FUCKING bugs next time, and people will actually play your masterpieces...

I play for the story, but not for the plot. What I enjoy is walking around in a fully realised, fleshed out world. It's immersive, it makes me wander around and explore. It's the only medium that can achieve that level of immersion for me, to be fully immersed in another world. Books and movies are a little more distant, having to tell their stories through other actors and happenings.

This is what I too primarily look for in a game.

Bioshock, as an example, had a VERY loose plot, admit it. However it is heralded as a classic of modern gaming because it had a few clear, fascinating concepts on display, AND an awesome as hell setting to immerse yourself. I didn't mind the lack of coherence in the story. Same goes for Mass Effect 2.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

I've always been of the opinion that story and gameplay should exist side by side - You need one to advance the other.

Story gives me a reason to keep playing. I get caught up in the characters and plot twists. The Mass Effect series for example, had me sitting there going "I'll stop after this next mission, just so I can find out what'll happen", then the next thing I know my weekend had gone. Most of the Final Fantasy series has been the same. End of disc 1 of FFVII, anyone? Uncharted does it well, too. That involvement in what's going on is key.

Then there was Army of Two, which I watched the other half play, and I'm buggered if I could work out what the story was. Plot, what plot? It struck the same chord every mission - you have to kill everything because that's just what you do. Maybe I zoned out after the tutorial level, I dunno.

I also watched him start to play 50 Cent Blood on the Sand (it was a freebie, don't judge me ) and after the first ten minutes, we had to stop because our combined laughter was making it impossible to play. Suspension of disbelief is one thing (dragons, magic, aliens, I can cope with), but the story in this - and I use the word 'story' in it's loosest possible sense - was so utterly awful, and the characters so completely unlikeable, that the disc went back in its box and has never again seen the light of day.

Hmmm, I've rambled a bit. I think my point is that while I don't want to have to put the controller down for half an hour every ten minutes just to watch a cutscene where the computer controls my character, judicious use of them keeps everything moving. I run into a room; there's a quick cutscene where you can see a missile launch countdown and groups of bad guys running out with obscenely overpowered weapons. Switch back to me and... GO.

 

[fulano]

People should make more use of procedural storytelling to enhance the overall directed narrative, and device a way to not wrest control away from the audience since that is the very fundament of the medium, and kinda why games like heavy rain earn BAFTAS which is just bull: the "critics" that a good number of people wnt to appease are only willing to offer respect when the integrity of the medium is compromised, to which I say "fuck it."

Half-Life is a good example of a good on-rails story, and games like Minecraft are examples of purely procedurallly generated scenarios. I'd say that if we could find a good balance between the two we could find a good way of relaying context without taking complete control of the narrative completely away from the audience.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I think storytelling is hugely important in games. It depends what it is though; I enjoy games with complex, serious stories (Metal Gear Solid 3), lighthearted and basic stories (Banjo-Kazooie), and games with little story or those that simply serve to move the game along (Doom).
I'm sure we could all think of multiple examples for each. But a game does not need a highly developed story to be good, nor does having one make the game good. It depends on the kind of game, the message, the audience, etc.
Games are a story telling medium as well as being just that - a game. They have huge potential, and some of it has been realized. I love stories that have been told to me via games, and hope to continue to be pleased by them.

Damn. That Extra Credit has really rubbed off on me.

 

[Frotality]

why must the 2 be mutually exclusive? you hear music, you watch movies, you read books, and you PLAY games. why cant the story of a game be played?

i cite half life 2 and a few key examples from the metal gear series (final boss of MGS3, microwave tunnel in MGS4) as examples of playable story, in that plot and drama is played out by the player, exactly how video games should integrate story; with interactivity, the very purpose of story-telling in this medium and not others. in HL, control is never wrested from the player at any time that it isnt also wrested from the character; you and gordon are as one the whole game, you see the whole plot unfold exactly as he does.

my MGS examples are examples of portraying feeling for a scene interactively; in MGS4, the game gives you a purposefully ridiculous button-mashing sequence that goes on way longer than reasonable, which ties in perfectly to what your actually doing; snake is basically going through this tunnel of death by sheer willpower, and sheer willpower is all that will get you though the button mashing; by the end, you feel as tired as snake, which conveys the tone of the scene in a way no other medium can; interactively. in mgs3, instead of relegating the final boss to cutscene death (something you would expect from most games, but metal gear specifically), the game presents you with one very simple, yet very powerful moment: you have to actually pull the trigger, reducing the all to perfectly named final boss to the same death you inflict on any other mook throughout the game; a character most players by that point had grown to like. combined with the fact that you could knock out most regular enemies and the sorrow boss-fight, that one simple "press R to kill" scene really drives home the feeling that snake doesnt want to do this, but has to.

...but i digress. its essentially the same argument of whether you want a thoughtful movie or an action-filled movie; a mystery novel or a trashy romance. there's room enough in the world for both mostly story and mostly gameplay oriented games, as with any other medium, it depends on what you want at the time, and even then its not like you cant have both in a few rare works.

 

[Frybird]

The Thing about Cutscenes is that developers have to REALLY HONESTLY ask themselves in EVERY SITUATION of potential plot development: Do we really need a cutscene for this?

(Side rant: Although not Story related, it's really annoying how in Crysis 2 the suit will "override" your controls in order to show you one of it's features. It's more distracting than anything else, and since it's all shown on screen and told through voice, it's absolutely not neccessary to stop the player who does not care or can multitask. It's almost absurd when that happens during the armor mode presentation where you are put in plain sight of an enemy who can blow up a barrel near you so you can see how the mode works...wich is highly unneccessary and actually cuts into the players' playstyle)

There are many alternatives for Cutscenes that get used more and more in recent years, and although they are also essentially "break up gameplay to tell a bit of story", they work in a way that is much less immersion-breaking.

Short conversation between the player character and an NPC? Build a corridor long enough so players can run to the next setpiece while listening to it. If the conversation is too long for that, put the player in an elevator or something like that.
Only if the conversation is really a few minutes long or needs actual "acting" from the player character, there should be a cutscene.

Smaller events can be solved by a Gears of War/Crysis 2/Bulletstorm like "Look here now!" Button or, again, by designing the level in a way that you cannot possibly miss the important thing happening.

All of these things are essentially the same as cutscenes, but plot development in games is just so much less annoying when it does not involve taking the control away from the player. Gameplay IS the most important part of a videogame, and annoyance begins by having the player not playing. Flow is important, and developers should always try everything to NOT bring gameplay to a screeching halt during gameplay, but rather just slow down a bit.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Highly depends on the game type, I'll never fault a game like Tetris/Pac-Man for lack of story, but in an RPG I expect a story/world to dive into.
Ideally the gameplay and story should balance out, but it's hard to reach that level of polish so the main thing developers should do is make cut-scenes skippable, if your story is boring then give us the option of moving along because there is really nothing worse then a forced story.

As for the "if I wanted a story I'd read a book" comments, well they just point out their IQ is on the level of a potato, and I'm sure they will still find enough games they can grasp.

 

[Shymer]

I agree with you. Unlike films, where I expect a story because it is a story-telling medium, games don't have to be about a story at all (apart from the very basic level of being an active protagonist working towards some goal). A game is a much more flexible medium than a film, or a book in this regard.

There will be as much problem with shoe-horning a story into a game that doesn't warrant one, as there is missing out, or putting in a poor story in a game that needs one to hold it together.

Many games are criticised as having bad stories, but it is much harder to define what a good (or bad) story is. It is easy for developers to get into ruts of behaviour (like FPS cut-scene, level, boss-fight - and repeat or RPG main mission, side-quest, fetch quest), but this is partly what has worked in the past, partly what is expedient, partly what is practical. Larger studios with greater latitude can make innovations to the story-telling, but some of the greatest games written allow you to make your own epic in the absence of an overarching narrative, like the original Elite.

If I am honest about what appeals to me most about games - it isn't the story. I enjoy Battlefield BC2 - I enjoyed the single player campaign and I enjoy the multiplayer. I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins. I enjoyed Blur, the racing game. Story isn't the common factor. Fun, immersion and skilled game design is.

 

[SoranMBane]

I think the biggest problem with games and their stories has less to do with how they're told and more to do with how they're formed. What developers generally try to do is take a gameplay type (FPS, RPG, platformer, beat-em-up, etc.) and wrap a half-baked story around those mechanics to give the players actions some semblance of context, when they should be doing the opposite by taking a theme and designing the gameplay to express that theme. Some games have been able to make the "gameplay then story" way of doing things work with some uncommonly good storytelling results (Half-Life 2, Portal, Call of Duty 4), but those are the exception rather than the rule. Doing things the other way would generally result in deeper narratives (or at least games with actual relevant themes, even if they don't tell a story. Think Flower) and the occasional bit of innovative gameplay (some of the best stories games have yet to tell don't fit with the established genres, after all).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I don't know. I like playing games for the game more than their stories but I don't feel like shouting about it.