The Story Snob

[ZZoMBiE13]

Experienced Points: The Story Snob

You don't have to put a story in your game, but if you do, try to make it not suck.

Read Full Article

Personally I find the major problem with video game stories is that more often than not all we get are story concepts that were never truly realized. Of course this isn't always true and some games manage it quite nicely. But the majority just have a basic idea with no follow through.

Of course occasionally that can work to the game's advantage. Crackdown had so little in the way of actual story, but as a result the tale of my Agent became my own to create. But a proper narrative would have been nice. Only time will tell if the sequel can shake things up and give us what the first didn't.

I grew up in the Atari generation, when story was something that was occasionally written in the manual but never put into the game. So any time I get a good game story it's like a sweet tasty bonus to the fun. I wish more developers would take the time to make something memorable for us to encounter between the gun fights.

 

[Cliff_m85]

SONIC UNLEASHED???? SONIC UNLEASHED??!!!! How can you say that that had a great story?????

*throws chair at Shamus*

*ragequits*

 

[Vaanderpantz]

lol didn't even catch that Sonic Unleashed bit until the note at the bottom. I believe a good story can make a good game into a great one, but a bad story won't ruin solid gameplay for me

 

[Tears of Blood]

Shamus!

I disagree!

I think the Resident Evil games have good stories. Because, for their time, I think "zombie virus" concept was pretty new, if not to be started by the Resident Evil games. I could be wrong, as I haven't researched it, but it was the first piece of media that I ever found that idea in. Dialogue was pretty bad, sure, but the story itself was pretty cool, I thought.

I think the real reason people look down on the Resident Evil games is that their ideas started getting used in other media. Other games, movies, that kind of stuff.

Even if I'm wrong, I don't think that they have atrocious story, at least.

 

[Magnalian]

Wow, I glanced right over the Sonic Unleashed comment...

 

[LordWalter]

Experienced Points: The Story Snob

You don't have to put a story in your game, but if you do, try to make it not suck.

Read Full Article

I had such a severe case of cognitive dissonance that I actually didn't even comprehend that you had said "Sonic Unleashed" until the very last paragraph.

That's....terrifying and awesome at the same time.

 

[(LK)]

First off I think 2 hours of car chaces, explosions, gunfights and sword fights with no sembalance of plot would be awsome. Other than that I agree with the article. Shoe horning a story into a game because "no game is complete without a story," is a bad idea. Some of my favorite games don't have any thing resembeling a traditional story in them. Civilization 3 and Mount & Blade being examples. Perhaps I am drawing a different conclusion from this article than the author, but there are many games today that could be greatly improved by stripping out of all story element.

Great examples of stories that can be told by games, which are impossible to accomplish in passive fiction such as writing or film.

Civ is a god game. The story is the flow of your civilization as you lead it in a given session. It's sparse, and is only as present as you make it by thinking about it.

Mount and Blade is a sandbox RPG. The game gives you a world and a malleable starting character and allows you to enact the story you wish with that character. The only railroading is the game's setting and rules themselves. How to flesh out that role and story is at one's own discretion.

Those are the sort of stories that most mass-produced games should strive to have. The kind that don't require careful, elegant writing... because most studios producing them aren't equipped to produce that kind of writing.

If more game developers stuck to creating games, and let those studios with skillful writers produce the ones with pre-made, patently present storylines, then we wouldn't always have to have our faces rubbed in writing which is as ridiculous as (and analogous to) the sight of an army whose armor was thrown together by a potter, for lack of a smith.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

The other noteworthy thing about the story in Left 4 Dead is that there isn't much of it. There is exactly as much as we need for the game to work, and no more. Once the particulars are set up, the story doesn't keep shoving itself to the forefront and getting in the way just for the sake of trying to be like a movie. The designers didn't put in an ongoing plot where you chase around some mustache-twirling idiot of an antagonist who engineered the entire zombie plague and now wants to kill the survivors to complete all the items on his "clueless villain" checklist. They didn't put in some "obvious traitor" side plot. No global conspiracy. No author-insertion mystery oracle to deliver exposition. No awkward love story. Nothing about saving your parents / children / significant other from the threat. The story is small, lightweight, and packs enough punch to set the mood and tone for dozens or even hundreds of hours of multiplayer zombie-smashing.

I take it you didn't like Indigo Prophecy? Since, you know, the second half of your paragraph is the game's ending. Spoiler to the two people who still cared, five years (and four pages) in.

I feel like David Cage would really benefit from a "less is more" mantra.

 

[StarkillerisDead]

Interesting that you mentioned Resistance. I personally love that series and I found the characterisation and plots weren't amazing, but were still pretty good. The ending of the second game was genuinely moving.

 

[Branches]

A Buddy of mine's friend had tried to convince him that the entirety of the modern warfare series stories were some deep interpretation on modern war and conflict, Also that the fact that everyone is betrayed is some sort of inner philosophical message of "don't trust anyone".

I always found that entertaining.

 

[Shamus Young]

The other noteworthy thing about the story in Left 4 Dead is that there isn't much of it. There is exactly as much as we need for the game to work, and no more. Once the particulars are set up, the story doesn't keep shoving itself to the forefront and getting in the way just for the sake of trying to be like a movie. The designers didn't put in an ongoing plot where you chase around some mustache-twirling idiot of an antagonist who engineered the entire zombie plague and now wants to kill the survivors to complete all the items on his "clueless villain" checklist. They didn't put in some "obvious traitor" side plot. No global conspiracy. No author-insertion mystery oracle to deliver exposition. No awkward love story. Nothing about saving your parents / children / significant other from the threat. The story is small, lightweight, and packs enough punch to set the mood and tone for dozens or even hundreds of hours of multiplayer zombie-smashing.

I take it you didn't like Indigo Prophecy? Since, you know, the second half of your paragraph is the game's ending. Spoiler to the two people who still cared, five years (and four pages) in.

I feel like David Cage would really benefit from a "less is more" mantra.

I just ran through a list of common tropes that keep showing up. The fact that IP used them all is ... unfortunate. I really wanted to like that game. Loved that first hour or so. And even though the plot of IP as painfully bad, I give credit for them trying something new.

And I'm happy that cage seems to have redeemed himself with Heavy Rain.

 

[indiana_104]

Another problem with gaming going mainstream is its now in a state of rot. None of the big developers need to change much of anything about the formulas they currently employ, because for every person whos bored by [mainstream game #27b], two more people will have their socks blown completely off.

*start ramble*

You know what? I think that I've found out the reason why. For most people, [mainstream game#27b] is the first game they've played. They have nothing to compare it to, and thus they think it's the BEST GAEM EVAR!!11! Whereas people who have been gaming for a long time have something to compare it to. I am ashamed to say that I'm %75 the latter and %25 percent the former. I sorta like all games, but there are a few I don't like like Far Cry 2 and Dragon Age.

*stop ramble*

 

[Da Ork]

Fable 2 would be better without the main story...I haven't read any one else's comments so someone may have said that before me but anyway...

Nah, I don't remember reading anything about it. But yeah, I agree.
The whole game was fun, and the sidequests were usually unique, interesting, and funny.

Its just the main story that sucks ass. At the very least they could have swapped the roles of Lucien and Reaver.

Yeah I loved the game as a whole. Whoever wrote the side quests was brilliant. The fighting mechanics were great. The character customization was good. The main storyline was a pain.

edit: Without spoilers but the "ending" sucks (I say "ending" because the game doesn't actually end)

 

[Rorschach_pln]

For me, story is not the most important thing. Sure, I like a good story, but sometimes I just play the game and don't event bother with what the developers were trying to say. Like RE5, the new Splinter Cell - I just hit the "off" switch and start shooting. I think Prototype went in that category also, but I still loved the game.
And if we didn't have games with weak story, how would we appreciate the ones with a good story? That's why I sometimes watch stupid movies intentionally - just to check how bad is "bad"

 

[xscoot]

First off I think 2 hours of car chaces, explosions, gunfights and sword fights with no sembalance of plot would be awsome. Other than that I agree with the article. Shoe horning a story into a game because "no game is complete without a story," is a bad idea. Some of my favorite games don't have any thing resembeling a traditional story in them. Civilization 3 and Mount & Blade being examples. Perhaps I am drawing a different conclusion from this article than the author, but there are many games today that could be greatly improoved by stripping out of all story element.

A few things:

On youtube, you can find a movie called "Riki-Oh: The Story of Riki". It's my favorite kung-fu action movie of all time, with over the top violence. But, there's a plot there; jails are used as a form of cheap labor, and all the prisoners are regularly abused. Riki, the title character, fights for their freedom. The plot makes the movie more awesome. Sure, seeing him rip out a mans vital organs is awesome, but knowing that he is doing it to save another person makes it more awesome. The story lays down the groundwork.

Of course, you are correct about not every game needing a story. Game making doesn't follow a recipe; you can't add a pinch of atmosphere and a teaspoon of story and make something good. Each game will be different, and so will need to be made differently. So, some games can be made with no plot whatsoever and be great, while others need a story to thrive. It's just that if the game has a story, it better be good.

 

[jthm]

Uh, what stories? Portal and LFD don't have stories, they have concepts. "You're a survivor of a zombocalypse. You're a human labrat! Go! This isn't a bad thing, but it isn't storytelling either. It's basic motivation.

 

[Madmanonfire]

See, this has always been my opinion about stories and video games. I only think a story can really be considered detrimental to the experience when it is constantly being shoved in your face.

I know mentioned Epic as being guilty of producing games where this is an issue, but I would disagree, at least for the first Gears of War. The story was very basic and fairly dumb, with none of the characters being particularly likable and a number of stupid moments. However, to me this was never an issue because the story just felt like a way to move you from various locals and engage in more gunfights. They never had a long, lengthy cutscenes which unloaded tons of exposition onto the player. Whenever they did yank control away from you, it was just to explain why you were going to another area and what your goal was. So while the story was bad, it didn't ruin the game since it didn't keep me away from the game play.

Compare this to Tales of Symphonia. I complain about this game having a horribly dumb story a lot, but that's only because it really does become detrimental to my ability to enjoy the game. While I think the game play is great, the fact that I have to keep sitting through long cutscenes and listening to exposition I don't give a damn about irritates me. If the cut scenes were short and got straight to the point, it wouldn't be so bad. That's the advantage that Gears of War has over Tales of Symphonia. Both have bad characters and dumb plots, but one of them has enough sense to keep it tucked away most of the time and let you enjoy the actual game rather than make you slog through painful dialogue.

To sum this up, a shooter doesn't focus on story very much while an RPG focuses on story a lot, and an RPG should include little story to make it better.
Wow, great logic!

 

[Internet Kraken]

See, this has always been my opinion about stories and video games. I only think a story can really be considered detrimental to the experience when it is constantly being shoved in your face.

I know mentioned Epic as being guilty of producing games where this is an issue, but I would disagree, at least for the first Gears of War. The story was very basic and fairly dumb, with none of the characters being particularly likable and a number of stupid moments. However, to me this was never an issue because the story just felt like a way to move you from various locals and engage in more gunfights. They never had a long, lengthy cutscenes which unloaded tons of exposition onto the player. Whenever they did yank control away from you, it was just to explain why you were going to another area and what your goal was. So while the story was bad, it didn't ruin the game since it didn't keep me away from the game play.

Compare this to Tales of Symphonia. I complain about this game having a horribly dumb story a lot, but that's only because it really does become detrimental to my ability to enjoy the game. While I think the game play is great, the fact that I have to keep sitting through long cutscenes and listening to exposition I don't give a damn about irritates me. If the cut scenes were short and got straight to the point, it wouldn't be so bad. That's the advantage that Gears of War has over Tales of Symphonia. Both have bad characters and dumb plots, but one of them has enough sense to keep it tucked away most of the time and let you enjoy the actual game rather than make you slog through painful dialogue.

To sum this up, a shooter doesn't focus on story very much while an RPG focuses on story a lot, and an RPG should include little story to make it better.
Wow, great logic!

You're missing the point. Both games had terrible stories, bot good gameplay. One of them, however, didn't constantly bring up it's story and ruin the game in doing so. If you think an RPG should always have a lot of story, then Tales of Symphonia was doomed from the start. In my opinion though there is nothing that says an RPG needs to have a better story than any other game.