The Story Snob

[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.

 

[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.

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.

I agree with you. (And I've also read some of your blog after playing IP.) Indigo Prophecy should be a mandatory play for any game writer, as an example of both the best and worst storytelling in games.

But the game up until the museum made it more than worth the $2 I snagged it for on Steam.

 

[camazotz]

If that seems like a cop out to you, then don't try to build a fifty hour story, build a world that will sustain 50 hours worth of player-built narratives.

Different Strokes for Different Folks I guess. As a lifelong writer and roleplayer I really dislike this intense focus on "nonexistant" narrative in games, that somehow a story "invented" by the player and not present in the game is better than one put forward. If I wanted to create my own story, I could write one myself and if I wanted to create a story with other people I could play a pen and paper game.

Sorry folks, "Player Driven Narrative" as shown in games where there is basically no story is a cop out. This isn't a ringing endorsement of cutscene heavy storytelling either mind you, I just demand dialogue, interaction and plot, not silence and minimalism that barely soaks through the scenery.

I'm in the same boat as you, but might be interpreting this a bit differently. A game can have a strong narrative voice and intent, but the player experience moving through the game can craft a distinct individual tale (or feel like it does, same difference). I think Fallout 3 is a great example of how this can work; my own tale in playing that game can and does feel quite different than others'.

I'm still trying to figure out how L4D really qualifies as an example of story telling, though. In terms of setting the mood, theme and ambiance it's brilliant....but I'm not sure I'd label it as a "story" so much as an experience.

 

[paralistalon]

I almost ragequit when I saw Resident Evil listed... too bad I was already at the end of the article. You can only mean the original, because RE4 had one of the all-time greatest story/characters and integration of story with the gameplay. But even with the original, AT THE TIME, it was one of the best stories written for a game, and it was more or less designed to create the atmosphere that you've stumbled upon something that was better left a secret. This was back when it was the very first survival horror game, way before cinematic styled games became commonplace. Reading the story from scattered notes people left behind was a novel way to tell the story (no pun intended). I suppose if you're looking back on it after having played Morrowind, then I can see your point, but please give respect where respect is due.

I did, however, like that you stated what you believe does make for a bad story: "character inconsistencies, plot holes, bad pacing, forced exposition, hanging plot threads, and just plain old cheesy dialog." This should be hung on a giant banner over the computer of anyone wishing to write for games.

 

[Awexsome]

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 fro0m the start. In my opinion though there is nothing that says an RPG needs to have a better story than any other game.

Well what you call "ruining the game" I consider "making it awesome" Seriously, the worst thing about ToS is the cliches' it uses but you start playing through the game and it just tears those things to shreds and had me more involved than any other game I've ever played.

As for the article not much I can add. It's a whole quality over quantity approach where quantity doesn't always have to matter even in the least for some games. Story can be a huge liability or assest to a game but bad gameplay will wreck a game faster than a bad story does.

 

[War-hamster]

Well, I am one of those few who finds storytelling a very important part of a game, and when it fails me I consider the game bad. My favourite games are such because of great story - anything from Bioware qualifies (also everyone should check out Witcher). Bottom line either do a good story or don't bother with it at all - don't do a half assed story just because you feel like you have to, because it will only make things worse.

^^ This

 

[Silva]

I agree, Shamus. Game stories do not have to be extremely complex, but what you do see has to be well-done and give you a reason for all the action.

Actually, any Valve game we've seen so far seems to manage this excellently. Half Life 2 certainly left its mark by not interrupting the story or the action with cut scenes, but still having interesting and amusing characters along the way. It did not need more than the frame of a story, since the story was mostly the action of the gameplay itself. That kind of organic approach is perhaps the most appealing for a seamless experience.

Of course, I've been known to enjoy games that do interrupt the action with cut scenes on occasion, and that's because seamlessness is not always the best approach. Sometimes an interruption, if done well, can very much ramp up the story. This is perhaps a more Eastern approach, differing from the conventions of American game design, but it has been known to produce some of the finest moments in gaming history, so we should not discount that.

This is a question of developer's (or writer's) philosophy, and there is no easy answer to the question: "Which is the best approach?" I've played games with zero story that were fun, that's what arcades are for and there is nothing wrong with that, but if there is a story, like with any other included aspect, the right of the player is to expect a good one. Here's hoping developers manage to focus enough on things other than graphics and gameplay to reach a good balance.

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.

I'm just going to say that I disagree with you on Tales of Symphonia and leave it at that.

 

[My1stLuvJak]

Sonic Unleashed!?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? *RAGE QUIT*

 

[My1stLuvJak]

BTW, I agree 100%. Even Megaman 2 had some semblance of story, but it wasn't forced upon you - just press start to skip the (awesome) intro, and get to the action.

I don't get why developers insist on putting shitty stories into games, especially when I'd argue they don't need one in the first place. All we ever need for Mario and Megaman is for the princess to get kidnapped, and Wily to escape - put more in than that, then you'd better make it worth my while. If done well, storytelling can add a lot to a game...I thought that Princess what's-her-face from Mario Galaxy added something to the game that it's sequel is missing...sure, the storybook telling was kind of lame, but I appreciated it for what it was - a better attempt at characterization.

Just Cause 2 is an excellent example of terrible storytelling - I don't need a reason to conjure infinite parachutes or blow stuff up; just soaring around the island and playing with the tools the game gives me is enough. Listening to the (unskippable) intro in the demo had me laughing...being serious about burning an island to the ground, trying to weave a story that makes any kind of sense in the game world is ludicrous and unnecessary. Developers should either spend some money on good writing and voice actors, or leave it all alone - they're just wasting their money and making their games worse by doing a half-ass job

 

[Madmanonfire]

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 fro0m the start. In my opinion though there is nothing that says an RPG needs to have a better story than any other game.

Actually, I was avoiding the point on purpose. Addressing it would only bring about a battle of opinions, which is a waste of time.
Honestly, I disagree with your story issues about ToS, but there's no point in arguing about it.