The Story

[GUYWITHAGUN]

i dont understand why HL2 is held up as an example by every blue faced preacher of supposedly "good" storytelling. HL2 was fine but i doubt it was - by any stretch of the imagination - the best way. it's a trial and error method, if developers don't try different things then how in hell will they find anything better? I find people who preach that HL2 is the ONLY way to deliver narrative to be as short sighted as Lord Kelvin in the jackie chan movie "Around the world in 80 days" when he said "Everything worth discovering, has already been discovered!"

 

[Warachia]

Hey Yahtzee, have you ever played a game called Breakdown? It was the first game I've seen (and still only) that never left a first person view, you had control in most cutscenes, NPC's would get annoyed if you walked away when they talked an people talked when you walked up to them, and to this day I've never seen anything like it, it had most of the mechanics you mention and it kept you involved. For some reason, the game sold REALLY Shittily and I don't know why.

Also, to Graham, I don't see why you need to be scared of choices, choices happen in life, you make a choice and stick to it, don't feel bad about it later if something unpredictable happens, move on and learn what could've been done better next time, you'll know now, even if you never play the game again.

I do agree people seem to prefer an older medium of telling a story though.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I find it ironic and troubling that yahtzee says he enjoys it when story is told from the game-play or environment, yet bashes Halo for lack of one.

The AMAZING part of Halo's story is told this way, fromt the broken bodies, audio logs, and atomspehere in ODST, to the easter eggs and ARG's in the main series.

That, and the books, of course.

 

[Graham_LRR]

I like you quite a bit more now. Thank you for being accessible, seeing you on here has put an unreasonably large smile on my face. I still disagree with you, but I love that you came on here to defend/clarify your point. I am also sorry about how I came off, I was pissed about something else and never thought it would actually reach anybody. Once again +1 for being rad.

Well hey, thanks. I appreciate that a lot. Thanks for also being cool, despite our differing opinions.

I wasn't actually talking about GTA IV. Everything about that game was mediocre at best. I was referring to GTA 3 era (GTA 3, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). That's when GTA made more sense but it didn't actually take itself very seriously like GTA IV. San Andreas is a perfect example.

Oh! Well then you and I completely agree because San Andreas was outstanding.

That being said.... you get to play video games for a living (in some capacity), a lifestyle any of us would kill to have. Pardon us for not agreeing to the perceived unfairness of your situation, man.

I respect that, and appreciate what you're saying. Understand though, that I don't get to play game for a living. At all. I play way, way less games now that before we started working for the Escapist. I can see how that's your perception of it though. We don't play more than 15 minutes of most games we use for Unskippable.

In no way am I trying to act victimized or anything so stupid--I know I'm super lucky to have an amazing job doing what I love, but it's a job making videos, not playing games. I just beat Dead Rising 2 last week. That's how far behind I am.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

That being said.... you get to play video games for a living (in some capacity), a lifestyle any of us would kill to have. Pardon us for not agreeing to the perceived unfairness of your situation, man.

I respect that, and appreciate what you're saying. Understand though, that I don't get to play game for a living. At all. I play way, way less games now that before we started working for the Escapist. I can see how that's your perception of it though. We don't play more than 15 minutes of most games we use for Unskippable.

In no way am I trying to act victimized or anything so stupid--I know I'm super lucky to have an amazing job doing what I love, but it's a job making videos, not playing games. I just beat Dead Rising 2 last week. That's how far behind I am.

If...If it makes you feel any better, I'm just polishing off New Vegas (and loving the drastic implications of your dialogue choices; sorry)?......but, no wait; sorry scratch that, I burned through Bulletstorm last weekend, sorry

Anyway, I apologize profusely for my mistaken assumptions and I'm glad you get to do what you enjoy doing for a living, which, a lot of people would still...well, you know.....

On a friendlier note: May I recommend Bulletstorm? It doesn't have much Unskippable value (no tangible intro, see?) but it is moderately short (not "brown-FPS" short though), very entertaining, and a real kicker to boot.

(If you know the primary gimmick of that game, the intended pun should be obvious)

 

[thepyrethatburns]

I respect that, and appreciate what you're saying. Understand though, that I don't get to play game for a living. At all. I play way, way less games now that before we started working for the Escapist. I can see how that's your perception of it though. We don't play more than 15 minutes of most games we use for Unskippable.

In no way am I trying to act victimized or anything so stupid--I know I'm super lucky to have an amazing job doing what I love, but it's a job making videos, not playing games. I just beat Dead Rising 2 last week. That's how far behind I am.

Hurm. Long, long ago, I dipped my toe into freelance video game reviewing for awhile back when the PS1 was still going strong. I can sympathize.

I did like that you mentioned this:

Shamus, I don't think gaming's stories WERE better in the past. I think they're the exact same now, but more of it is laid bare for us with useless cutscenes and wooden acting, and because we're not having to use our imagination to fill in the gaps, we're realizing how lame the stories really are.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

I was watching the Gamespot review of Duodecim and, in the review, they mentioned that the story is pretty blah. I made the comment that I have FF 1-2, Mystic Quest, 4-10 and 12-13 and Dissidia's storyline is really no better or worse than the other FFs. I remember when the fans were practically writing the life histories of the Street Fighters (until the anime came along and threw a bucket of ice water on the theories that Chun-li and Ryu were star-crossed lovers) and how the mysterious Sheng Long fit into all of it.

These days, we do have less to speculate on during the game and the ingame story often doesn't live up to the stories/life histories that gamers used to concoct in their heads. It's no wonder that we're often a little let down by the story.

 

[Rassmusseum]

Where is this week's Extra Punctuation, Yahtzee?

On topic though, I agree with Graham on this topic and I also think his voice has the most weight here because of Unskippable.

 

[BrotherRool]

I still think that certain parts of Half-Life are basically forced cutscenes with a bad camera angle and I disagree with Yahtzee in wanted to be able to move around whilst talking. Just having the choice is distracting and it reminds you that in real life they'd respond if you weren't looking at them.

That said the way dialogue trees are currently done is even worse. I think the problem comes from the shopping list. Otherwise they could have the dialogue trees whilst something visually even a tiny bit interesting happened. At least during important moments.

And I think you were all missing some big places stories could go. Atmosphere stories, like Silent Hill, Bioshock and Half-Life are all good and amazing but that's not the only thing that can happen either. Just because you have stories that focus on setting doesn't mean that's the only way.


Good games really think and manipulate the choice you have. Uncharted 2 was getting very good at it and One Chance the flash game (if you haven't played it, go now!) is a fantastic example of how well the medium works at telling stories. Everyone whose played Heavy Rain knows the shear mechanics of the thing managed to elevate quite an awful story (even Yahtzee recognised that in his awards thing)

The best bits of MGS' story all come from clever little combinations of story and game. I think we need to be freer with genre and what players can do. Recognise there are different levels of interaction that can all be appropriate in the same game and really work with them. The nuke scene in CoD4 is another great example. As is the bit in Heavy Rain where you can shoot someone, but you can just never pull the trigger if that's not a choice you want to make

 

[Jaker the Baker]

You know, probably my favorite in game story was that of Red Dead Redemption, but it was BECAUSE it was open world that it worked. John Marston's out-of-cutscene attitude was strong enough that just dicking around in the sandbox still furthered characterization.

 

[Extragorey]

Yahtzee, you may just get that kind of dialogue in Skyrim.
And I had to laugh at Graham's caricature.
"I don't play GTA for the pathos, I play it for the stealing cars and the running down elderly pedestrians." LOL.
But anyway, on topic. I totally agree (who doesn't?) with how cutscenes are misused by game developers. Though I admit I quite liked how in Assassins Creed II you could often opt in to an (entirely optional) quicktime event during dialogue, where if you pressed the right button at the right time you'd get a few extra lines of dialogue, often humorous. It gives you interactivity without compromising flow, unlike all those games which let you sit for hours mulling over what dialogue option you'll say.
And story - almost always what I play a game for. Except for games that are just pure epic like the Assassins Creed series, Crysis, and perhaps Prototype.
So it's very important to me that the story is done right; that it's not mind-bogglingly confusing, or unbelievable or unengaging. So few games fit the criteria for a good story - and the cutscenes rarely help this.
Still, I believe there's hope yet; game development teams are getting ever larger, and just maybe they'll get some sane writers onboard sooner or later.

 

[mikespoff]

Half-Life 2 was remarkable that for a purely linear game, it never felt restrictive. You followed exactly the path that the developers laid out for you, but it always feels like you choose that path.

 

[Nimcha]

Hah, I don't agree with anything any of the three people said in this. Funny.

I love cutscenes when done well, it makes the character come alive for me. When all the characters do is go through the standard animations of movement, they feel too much like puppets to me. That's why I love the cutscenes in for example ME2. While talking the characters sit down, walk around, grab things off tables etc. It makes it all feel a lot more organic.

Also wanted to mention how strongly I disagree with the point of choices in games, I think it's good that sometimes a single choice can lead to a situation you didn't want (ie a character dying). If none of your actions would have consequences, what would be the point?

 

[CaptainStupid]

Incomprehensible to me is the lack of criticism aimed at Homefront. That story is ludicrous, demonizing, and insulting to intelligence. I have searched in vain for someone from The Escapist, GameSpot, IGN, PC Gamer, X-Play, CVG, etc., to ask an obvious rhetorical question: How is North Korea, a bankrupt gulag full of wretched, starving political prisoners, supposed to invade and occupy America? I made this point in another forum, and some angry man (boy?) replied, "Because. It's. FICTION." Maybe his Internet shouting explains why video game stories are consistently terrible... Dishonest cliches about psychopathic super-soldiers are good enough to meet low expectations. Stories driven by sympathetic characters possessed of humanity (and all its faults) are probably unprofitable.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.269298-296-On-the-Front-Lines#10339199

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.269298-296-On-the-Front-Lines#10343494

 

[Stevepinto3]

I like what Yahtzee mentioned about moving around and doing things in conversation. It's true, people don't just stand there staring at each other, they move around and fiddle with stuff. I remember the first Mercenaries game did this actually. While the United Na...sorry, Allied Nations commander was telling you about where to go find the artillery to blow up or whatever, you could walk around the room fiddling with televisions or maps or the vending machine. If I recall, you could mess with the dude at the Mafia HQ and the guy would keep swatting your hand. I'd just sit there the entire conversation trying to poke him, seeing if he would eventually get up and stab me or something.

The only thing that bugged me about that game was that they had the EXACT same HQ's in both locations. It's like they built them perfectly to scale in a new place. Oh, and falling in water killed you. That was retarded. Otherwise an awesome game.

 

[luciferjones]

This is a greta topic and one ive been wrestling with some time. I come from a background in filmmaking and script development but I've been a gamer since i bought a Microbee hand-build kit in 1983 and played Defender till my fingers cramped.

To my mind one of the primary problematic elements is the word 'Game' itself - one banal (and diminutive) word to describe an artform and screen-experience that spans from Tetris to Bioshock. I think Narrative and Gaming are a fantastic combo (when done well and I agree with the panel that halfLife 2 has not been bettered for seamless integration) but this is not to say that ALL of the stuff we call games need or deserve narratives. This is a topic I have written about in a post entitled "From Sandpit to Cinema: Charting the spectrum of Story vs Narrative"

http://www.mikejones.tv/journal/2010/6/12/from-sandpit-to-cinema-charting-the-spectrum-of-story-vs-nar.html

Also "Video game Taxonomies"

http://www.mikejones.tv/video-game-taxonomy/

This is trying to think through what the difference is between a Story and a Narrative. the idea that Tetris has a Story, written by the player as they play - a journey from start to end full of obstacles and challenges. But that this is not the same as the Narrative of a game like Bioshock - which is a delicate and sophisticated orchestration of events - a narrative that is Authored and passively Narrated.

Once we've made that separation we can start talking about Narrative-Gaming without clouding the debate with games that do not have or need to have such a narrative - narrow the field so to speak. Within this I think the key element missing from game Narratives is Subtext. After writing an article on Screenplay subtext in film and Tv I was prompted to turn the same critical thinking to gaming and wrote a piece called "Unearthing the subtext in game narrative"

http://www.mikejones.tv/journal/2011/2/28/unearthing-the-subtext-in-game-narrative.html

The macro perspective I take in regard Game Narratives is that too often the discussion around gaming and its relationship with traditional media (namely film) has too much 'baby out with the bathwater' about it. There tends to be a rather ignorant and arrogant stand that gaming is a Revolution of Story, that the old 'rules' don't apply, that Game storytelling is all different and unique. And I just cant buy that, simply because there is no precedent for it. Narrative Gaming is an Evolution of storytelling NOT a Revolution. its just the latest in a long history of evolution. Cinema didn't' revolutionise storytelling form the theatre - it just added new vocabulary and form. Likewise Radio dramas didn't revolutionise Story, and why humans like Dramatic Story, they just did it with a different set of tools.

Thus what i find disappointing in many game narratives is they ignore or are ignorant of the long standing principles of what makes a Story Compelling for a viewer/player. A fear too often we get shirty with Game Narrative as somehow incompatible with the medium instead of seeing such game Narratives for what they are - bad Storytelling.

Thanks for a great discussion and i look forward to reading more.

Cheers
Mike Jones
www.mikejones.tv

 

[KraGeRzR]

One word (and some periods)

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Specifically SoC (the other 2 didn't quite recreate the magic of SoC even if they were more polished)

The gameplay WAS the story, the environment was the star. There were a couple of small cutscenes but none of them took away exploration and discovery and most importantly none of them pulled you out of the immersion.

The Controller attack that removed player control and zoomed in exploded, and left the player's view all woozy is pee your pants scary if you aren't expecting it.

I'm a huge Planescape Torment fan but I agree the gameplay isn't anything to write home about. The game engine was just a vehicle to explore the detailed world and the rewards/equipment were just placeholders reminding you of things you already did and places you visited.

I totally agree. S.T.A.L.K.E.R: SoC is hands down my complete favorite game for that exact reason.

You couldn't have said it better.

I might add though, that another standout in Stalker SOC was the incredible atmosphere. Fallout 3 attempted it, but they only succeeded in making a shadow of the atmosphere of Stalker.

Seriously they didn't even need atmosphere. It could have just been a generic shooter - it had all the elements - zombies, trogs, and just normal shooty dudes.


But no, they managed to make all that feel like a gripping, agonizing fight for bare survival in a terror-filled wasteland stalked by unimaginable evils.

Again, atmosphere?



And in the end, that's how the whole game was. Even the ending sequence with you wandering through the sarcophagus... That creepy russian? HIVE MIND droning away at you from INSIDE YOUR HEAD!!!
S.T.A.L.K.E.R: SoC wins.

 

[Miral]

Alpha Protocol is a leading candidate for the exact opposite: your choices matter more in that game than in most others.

The vast majority of the dialogue options in that game affect whether you talk like a douche, a likeable douche, or a clever douche, but you usually end up saying basically the same thing.

Well, true, but the same is true of most dialogue-based games. There are, however, quite a few significant points where your attitude can make you friends or enemies, or even get someone killed. And the order in which you do the missions can sometimes make quite a big difference.

All I said was that I liked how Alpha Protocol did it, not that all games should. Alpha Protocol had issues, for sure, but getting my choice of how the character responds from a "tone of voice" aspect is a neat idea. I like it more than "I WILL DO THE GOOD THING" or "I WILL DO THE BAD THING", and it helps the designer move the story forward in one direction, while still giving the player input.

You should love Dragon Age II, then. Its dialogue system is all about that sort of thing.

 

[beema]

Wonder how Yahtzee feels about the "dialogue tree" treatment in Heavy Rain. It was almost exactly like what he suggested.

 

[Axelhander]

You know, this column would be great with Yahtzee, Shamus, Graham, and James. <-- Nobody excluded accidentally.

 

[Vandborg]

That was a great read.

I completly agree with what Graham said, and for the most part it was what I hated about Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age: Origins left more to the imagination with the silent character. In DA2 it feels like everything is set with a talking character and I especially hated the part where wrong, and at that point unfigurably, decision would lead to something bad 10 hours later in the game. It feels like there isn't a lot of RPG's anymore that let me, as the player, make and decide the story, it's more the game that wants to tell a story, which is fine, but if that story doesn't fit with what I had in mind myself, it will be a turn down.

So if you are gonna make a semi-open story in RPG, let me feel like it is open. A lot of times the dialog ends in the same thing, the only difference is the way it comes out of my character's mouth.