The Story

[icaritos]

1) Just about everyone who plays the game [HL2] agrees that this integration of gameplay and story is wonderfully done

No! Not everyone. I like the idea of the integration of gameplay and story (for example in Modern Warfare, where they did it right), but the way HL2 did it was horrible in my opinion, for two reasons:

1) I prefer no freedom (cutscene, scripted events in MW etc.) to the illusion of freedom that HL2 gives. Yes, you can run around, play with your gravity gun or whatever, but on a couple of occasions I was just screaming 'COME ON! LET ME AT IT! I could easily prevent the disaster, if you would just let me take the full control!' The ending of Ep 2 is a good example. I get it, you were hit by some sort of anti-gravity pulse or whatever, but so did Alyx and Eli, and somehow he could hit the advisor with a pipe. So I say - let me just blast it to hell with my weaponry. But no. It's a scripted event, and you can't do shit. God, that pissed me off so much. It's just annoying and extremely frustrating.

2) PACING! Oh my God, pacing! It's actually funny that Yahtzee writes about importance of it, while praising the storytelling of HL2. It's just way too slow. Too many monologues (because Gordon is a mute), while literally NOTHING happens. Say what you want, but if someone talks to you, and instead of listening, you're dicking around and throwing stuff against the wall because it's more interesting - that means someone screwed up. Big time.

Sorry for that outburst. I'm just so sick of people praising HL2 left and right. >.< It's not a bad game (though I didn't like it at all, and points above are about half of the reason why), but definitely not worth all the praise it gets.

Did you just praise MW story while saying HL2's was inferior? Sir be thankful for free speech or i would be obliged to murder you.

On the more serious side, i read both your main points and it essentially boils down to "I'm not shooting stuff, something is wrong!" while it's perfectly fine for you to prefer that kind of gameplay, don't attempt to twist things to match your world view. MW story is mediocre (with the exception of the ending that provided a nice atmosphere, assuming we are talking about MW 1, MW 2 was just a steaming pile of shit story wise), while Half-Life story is much more engaging and with a much better atmosphere.

Simple check, try to separate by plot development the different areas you experienced in the game, this is a good way to tell a story impact. When you think MW you have a bunch of slightly different shooting locations that blend together in a horrible mess, while HF can easily (even by non-fans) be separated and have a clearly stronger impression. Boat section, beginning oppressive city 17, ravenholm, citadel, antlions, it is all much richer and distinct.

 

[MattAn24]

I wish Graham elaborated more on why he feels Saints Row II is better than GTA, but I found his comment about "the good ol' days" (stories aren't any better, they just leave less room for the superior writing of our imaginations to fill in the gaps) to be priceless, as well as surprising in the sense that he's telling this to Shamus - didn't Shamus himself write an article providing examples of this being the case, at one point? I'm certain I've read an article arguing that idea on The Escapist before.

I think it's perfectly clear why Saint's Row 2 far surpasses GTA4. It doesn't take itself so damn seriously! It doesn't have "Cousin, it is your cousin! Want to go to a titty bar?" every FIVE GOD DAMN SECONDS!! >.<

You could do whatever you want, HOWEVER you want. I also didn't see ANY linearity in SR2.. You had plenty of side events to do OR 3-4 gangs to take down.. And it didn't drag on. In GTA4, not only was it horrendously dull and lacked any colour whatsoever.. SR2 was vibrant, the city was YOURS to do what you want and Volition really didn't hold back any insanity.. Oh, and let's not forget the brilliance that is playing the single-player storyline in co-op.

---------------

Anyway, I quite like this new segment of the site. I also hope it has a revolving cast of contributors, rather than just Yahtzee, Bob & James. Seeing Graham & Shamus contribute is great!

As for THIS particular article, I am in full agreement with Graham. I believe I've stated before my incredible distaste for the moral choice system in Western RPGs.. I can't stand Mass Effect or Dragon Age, gameplay OR story progression. I tolerate Fable III, but under immense suffering. I don't exactly mind a few personal decisions here and there, but when it drastically affects the story and forces me to choose between "right or wrong", with a major downside being that some quests have to be avoided or NPC's could just drop dead or hate you, etc.. It really annoys me. Prime example in Fable III's mercenary camp. The Dweller Camp's leader, Sabine, gives the forced quest to clear out the mercenary camp and kill the leader, Saker. You infiltrate their base and end up fighting the big man himself. After "defeating" him, you have two choices. The "good" option, sparing his life.. And the "bad" option, killing the vile bastard.

Now, let's go back a step. "The FORCED quest to clear out the mercenary camp and KILL THE LEADER, Saker." That's the outline of the quest Sabine gives you. Naturally, I choose to kill Saker.. I return to Sabine, heralded as their lord and savior and promise to help them as King. It is HOURS LATER IN THE GAME when I decide to read through some of the quests in the BradyGames Fable III guide and find out that SAKER CAN BECOME A "LOYAL FOLLOWER" on the Road to Rule. WHAT. THE. FUCK. The quest clearly stated to "KILL HIM, HE IS A VILE PIG".. Yet he counts as a follower if spared? What about Sabine's request? None of that makes ANY sense..

See, it's no wonder I choose to play more Japanese RPGs lately, even resorting to going back to my precious Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy X!
Yeah. I'm going back and playing games that are ten to twelve years old, rather than playing most of the games around today. Granted, Final Fantasy games have their flaws and are by no means perfect (except for maybe IX, I honestly can't fault a game so brilliant) and yes, I definitely believe certain traits in JRPGs need a desperate change, but they are no better or worse than any Western RPG. They all have strengths. They all have weaknesses. But it says a lot about games of today when I'm resorting to playing decade old games instead..

 

[ImprovizoR]

Boy am I glad these guy aren't in charge of gaming industry. I love cutscenes and I think free roaming games can have good stories. GTA, Assassin's Creed and MAFIA come to mind. Seriously, they didn't mention Mafia? The characters, the story progression and character development, the pacing slowly building up to a grand finale? And they didn't even mention it?!

Also, what half-life 2 did isn't quite unique. Bioshock did it too and it did it better in my opinion. I was more immersed in Bioshock then I ever was in Half Life 2 (as much as I love HL2).

And why hate the choices? If you don't like choices don't play RPG's. Simple as that. It seems they have forgotten some of the basic things about certain gaming genres. I loved Dragon Age Origins dialogues that lasted for hours. I wanted to know more about Ferelden and my companions. That kind of dialogue immerses you into the world of the game. And the more I know about it the more real it feels.

 

[MattAn24]

I think everyone should get the cartoon avatar treatment, Yahtzee, Bob, and James included. I really freakin' like them. Whoever drew them should get many cookies.

...or just money

First of all, the thumbnail of Graham with his old FX1 is beyond words in levels of cool. Good on whoever drew that.

That Graham drawing is by the awesome Mike Lunsford, creator of the Supernormal Step webcomic. He also drew the massive Desert Bus for Hope IV poster!

 

[Miral]

Yahtzee, it's funny you mention Alpha Protocol, because it did another thing I liked when dealing with conversation trees, which is making your choices largely unimportant to the story. If they're giving you a time limit to answer, they'd pretty much have to, but you could make whatever choice you felt like, knowing that while you might miss out on something fun by picking the "wrong" option, you wouldn't ruin your whole experience.

Wait, what? Alpha Protocol is a leading candidate for the exact opposite: your choices matter more in that game than in most others. (This is also true for Heavy Rain, as another commenter pointed out; I think it's also true for the Witcher, although I don't have enough personal experience with that yet.) Certainly your choices in AP matter much more than in the Mass Effect games, which are themselves a rung or two above most other games. (Games outside the RPG genre tend not to have choices matter to the story in the slightest.)

What's done particularly well in Alpha Protocol and Heavy Rain is the integration of the choice -- the game will continue on without interruption; the choices aren't "pass" or "fail" or even "good" or "bad", they just alter the outcomes of later events in appropriate ways.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

That Graham drawing is by the awesome Mike Lunsford, creator of the Supernormal Step webcomic. He also drew the massive Desert Bus for Hope IV poster!

Oh. Awesome. Well, we must send Mike Lunsford cookies, then.

...and really, anytime Yahtzee shows up in anything not Zero Punctuation, he really should show up as this.

...the real-life, slow-talking Ben Croshaw should be kept as far away from the foul-mouthed verbal diarrhea-spewing Zero Punctuation Ben Croshaw. Thus, he should be given a cartoon avatar of himself.

That's what I think, anyway. Zero Punctuation and Extra Punctuation showcase two very different sides of Yahtzee, and this column should reflect this, too.

 

[Yossarian1507]

Did you just praise MW story while saying HL2's was inferior? Sir be thankful for free speech or i would be obliged to murder you.

On the more serious side, i read both your main points and it essentially boils down to "I'm not shooting stuff, something is wrong!" while it's perfectly fine for you to prefer that kind of gameplay, don't attempt to twist things to match your world view. MW story is mediocre (with the exception of the ending that provided a nice atmosphere, assuming we are talking about MW 1, MW 2 was just a steaming pile of shit story wise), while Half-Life story is much more engaging and with a much better atmosphere.

Simple check, try to separate by plot development the different areas you experienced in the game, this is a good way to tell a story impact. When you think MW you have a bunch of slightly different shooting locations that blend together in a horrible mess, while HF can easily (even by non-fans) be separated and have a clearly stronger impression. Boat section, beginning oppressive city 17, ravenholm, citadel, antlions, it is all much richer and distinct.

You got it all wrong.

First of all - I'm not the 'shooting things is important, the plot is irrelevant' guy. I love the good story in games, and my top 3 games of all time reflect that (Heavy Rain, KotOR II, Planescape Torment). But if the plot is going to work, it must be executed well.

I never said anything abut the quality of the plot. MW story, although quite nice, is still only a political fiction, that would be suitable for a B class movie at best. HL2 story is really good though. But this is story, and I'm talking about storyTELLING. And this is the point where MW shines, while HL2 fails.

In MW, even though there are things that will just happen, and you don't have any control over it, it still feels like you are doing everything you can, and that's just the case of 'shit happens, you did your best, but sometimes it just ends like that' (you crawling on the ground after the nuke went off in MW, or even Roach's last mission in MW2). In HL2 there's also stuff that will happen regardless of your actions, that's normal for EVERY video-game, but in HL2, this is the case of holding you back, because it MUST HAPPEN for the sake of the plot. Gordon could've easily prevent the sad ending of Ep2, if your control over character would be full. You don't have it though, you see that it's just an illusion, and that's why it's frustrating. MW did a damn good job at not breaking that illusion, and that's why Infinity Ward did it better.

Also, don't even try to tell me, that HL2 has a good pace. Just look at the beginning. You're in Orwellian City 17, you're in trouble, but Alyx helps you. So far so good. Then you go to Eli's lab, where you listen, and listen, and listen. Okay, exposition. A little boring, but I can cope with that. And then 'OMIGOD Gordon, the teleportation got fucked up, you need to fight your way through Combine to actually start the plot for real.' Gah, okay. I understand. It was the plot device to get a look at Breen and letting him know that Gordon is in town, although I can think of multiple ways to make that happen better. Nevermind, let's move on. After FINALLY reaching your destination point, it seems like the plot is finally going to sta- oh no wait, the rubble separated us, you need to go through the scary Ravenholm to start it for real. And at this point I was like 'GOD DAMN! THIS SUCKS!' Again, I know it was the introduction of the priest, but come on, there are better ways to do this! I'm not an enemy of a slow pace in games, Heavy Rain, and to lesser extent, KotOR II did that as well, but in those cases it was meaningful (establishing Ethan as a main character and showing his personal tragedy before the main game starts, and then Jayden and Shelby showing both their strong and weak sides [unfortunately, proper Madison introduction got cut, so she felt a little bit bland] and quite slow but interesting mystery about the lifeless mining station + introduction of Sion, Krea and Atton as the characters, respectively). In this case, it felt like Valve were trolls saying 'u can't has the plot u want. U MAD?' And indeed, I was mad. Unfortunately, even though the plot starts later, some of the bad parts remain like a lot of monologues of exposition that could be done in a more interesting way (like through the newspapers. Or maybe through audio-logs Bioshock style, as it was really cool).

On a side note - you must be joking about the boat sections. Other examples - fine. I didn't like Ravenholm, but I get that it could be interesting and/or scary for someone else. Other locations were interesting and making you feel connected with the world, I agree. But the boat sections? Bland, annoying levels with almost zero connections to the plot and the world? Seriously?

 

[waywardsquander]

I have an on again off again relationship with cut scenes. If they're good, I don't mind them at all. If they're crap, well... Devil May Cry 3 was actually one of my favorite uses of cut scenes, though it certainly isn't innocent of some crappy cut scenes. Two aspects I enjoyed in the cut scenes is that 1) There are some actions that Dante performs that he can actually do in game and 2) The over the top acting and action helped to create an unmistakable style.

The first point is not in agreement with Mr. Croshaw's remarks about having cut scenes not show actions that the player can do in game. I am more often annoyed that cut scenes show scenarios that I wish I were playing instead of the game. Starcraft 2 is the most recent violator. I was dying to play their in-game engine cut scenes, especially the parts that occur late in the single player campaign. Instead, I was stuck in omnipotent mode moving toys around a fake battlefield. The pre-Subsistance MGS games were another case. I hated how the cut scenes would show really cool stuff, but I was stuck in a goofy camera angle that limited my ability to feel like I could do anything nearly as fantastic in the game world.

The second point is more of a specific case of "good" cut scenes in Devil May Cry 3. There were definitely some throw away cinematics squeezed in between levels, but other cut scenes were outstanding in their production. I won't argue that this does or doesn't ruin "immersion", as I believe that it is totally a matter of opinion.

Yahtzee's Red Letter Media reference is absolutely spot on in terms of analogy. I really wish I could get into Dragon Age 2, but I just can't.

 

[K1NG_IC3]

I can't help but feel like there was much less focus on Story in gaming, and much of talk on "Why Story is Oil & The rest of the game is Water". That aside, pretty much agree with what they said.

It isn't a bad thing to have gameplay and story-line seperated between cutscenes and gameplay, but it does ruin what COULD BE a very good/well-thought out story. If you really think about it, a lot of games out there are either turning the story or gameplay into "filler".

Think of TV shows or anime, some of them are filled with 23 minutes of no-progress, then the random 4 minutes of juicy delicious story-progressing sauce. Some have full episodes of "filler". You've probably seen this too many times in action-heavy games (or others) and not even noticed. God of War II & III is all "Gameplay is happy fun killy time" while the story is kind of filler to more Kill Kill Stab Stab. This doesn't make the game bad, but it makes the story even lesser than it is. At the same time, if the story wasn't there at all, you'd just have another button-mashing senseless killer. All the same.

On the other hand, God of War (If you really want to seperate it, David Jaffe's God of War), did the same formula, but the storyline was captivating, and could somehow make you have an emotional connection with Kratos. Let me remind you that this is the same guy who was considered the most badass character of its year when the game came out. Even killers have tragedies?

One thing that did bother me about Assassin's Creed. Yes, there were story-progressing scenes that had you walking, talking, and doing various things, but there were still scenes where you were on the railroad tracks...what happened? I can't count how many times I was out IN PUBLIC AREAS talking two someone when the guards would pass-by right behind me. Wow, I guess I was invisible...

Heavy Rain is such a unique case to bring up that it has to be on Not-A-Planet Pluto. It isn't going by formula, it isn't all cutscene, yet it is all cutscene. It makes the story THE gameplay, and the actions your cause & effect. Before the game even came out, everybody had question marks hovering over their heads over it. L.A. Noire is another one of those titles. High Hopes?

As for where PURE STORY has gone (ha, on topic), it has progressed but only as much as technology has grown. Still in the age where Nintendo ruled the gaming world (as gaming, NOT sales numbers), and they were still using franchise characters for pure gameplay fun with other various furries. Everybody was still following behind this method. Now we have better technology, can see human expressions like a widescreen close-up in the movies. If anything we are only recently using technology make characters more of "The Face" of the game, than just the object we use to shoot things.

Story will become more of the forefront as we get more successful games to use it better. We can still count notable games on our hands with amazing story:gameplay ratio, we have to get more.

 

[Dice Warwick]

I hole hardheartedly agree with the last comment; with technology as good as it is now, game makers are not allowed to get away with strait forward text bubble dialog seams, and expect the player to immagen how thing are being said, like in a book. But with game makers able to show all parts of the story, they are also able to over tell the games, with JRPG's being the worst. XenoSaga, I got a good 60 hours of gameplay in my first play through, but when I played it agen (skipping most of the cutseens) I only got around 20 hours of game-play. or the most resent FFXIII, were I didn't feel like I was actually playing the game until the last disk, and by then I had stopped caring about the characters.

I think that in most games cutseens are unavoidable, as when your in a situation were you cant do anything anyways, but same games try to get around that with interactive cutseens (PRESS "B" OR YOU DIE!!!) Half-Life 2 is just the kind of game that is useing the set up from the first game made in a time were FPS didn't have much in the way of cutseens, and the main characters did not talk much, or ar all, so they were abule to get away with a mute Gordon Freeman, thus not needing a cutseen other then at the start and end of the game.

But with how good the tech is now a days, I gess the name of the game for story's is "Tell less, show more"

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

The problem is that they don't consider the limitations we still have now. Maybe not technologically, but in terms of resources.
It's a little more difficult than it sounds to program the character doing something else while they're carrying on a conversation. And even if they are doing something else, too much business makes the scene about that, not about the conversation.
For example, take Mass Effect. Let's say you're having a conversation with Garrus as he's fidling with his rifle. If that went on, the scene would become about the rifle, and you'd completely lose track of the conversation.
It's actually a part of the film industry. Actors who get too busy with a prop are not good actors. Unless it's about the prop.
And not every conversation can be made walking down a hallway, since the timing with which you respond may not match the time it takes to travel said hallway. So those conventions don't necessarily work in the favor of the narrative.
So the way Bioware has it now, I'd say, is as good as we can get. And yes, they could give you a time limit on your responses. But do you honestly want a time limit on your responses in Mass Effect? They do decide some crucial things, so they allow you to consider the consequences.

The problem I have with discussions about video game storylins is that everyone who has a problem with conventional cinematics thinks they have the ultimate answer for the way storytelling in games should be done. Well, frankly, I don't consider "always letting you have control" or silent hero games to be the best solution. Like Half-Life... I mean, it's one possible convention for storytelling. But personally, I don't like it, and have no interest in the game. I like main characters with personality, and are vocal about it. Not ALL games have to be that way, but last I checked, I saw no problem with games like Uncharted, and its cutscenes.

Everyone has their preference, and that's why there is no "solution" for game storytelling. Take Metal Gear Solid, for example. MGS is known to have some long ass cutscenes. But the first MGS game has time and again been acclaimed to be one of the best the PS1 had to offer. And heck, the other MGS games did too, for their respective platforms. What does that mean? It means that all games should have cinematics as long as Metal Gear Solid.... I'm kidding. No, it doesn't, but I bet that kind of a statement could really infuriate some people. My point is, long drawn out cutscenes are a key part of what Metal Gear Solid is. So let MGS be MGS. Some people don't like it, they don't have to play it.
I didn't like the narrative style of Bioshock. I didn't complain about it, I just moved on to a different game. It's that simple.

There's nothing wrong with how the narrative is told in Fallout, or Mass Effect, or Metal Gear Solid, or Heavy Rain, or Bioshock. They're just very different styles of narratives. There are plenty of people out there for each, so I don't see why someone needs to dictate, "Video Game storytelling should be like this."

 

[Bobbity]

Where did James go?
Ideally, I'd have this panel be slightly longer; only four things after waiting to weeks - and have James, Shamus and Yahtzee as the most regular contributors, with the others coming in and out to talk about this stuff as well.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Hmph, when James died in Fallout 3 all I thought was "Well that was a waste of time".

 

[Saelune]

So Yahtzee is pro Skyrim apparently, since he described what Skryim says its going to try to do. That is to say, real time conversations.
Maybe we should make developers play Dungeons and Dragons as a DM. I now realize being a Dungeon Master is the same as a developer, but I can modify and change in real time, since its personal. Constantly I try to give my players an amazing story, but making them involved. Ofcourse, there are no cutscenes, so the players can just attack my monologue giving villian anytime.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Totally with you guys on this one. Not only was the story of the HL universe great, but the way it was told was excellent as well. Interesting discussion guys!

 

[Scars Unseen]

Yahtzee's rule of never making non-interactive what could be interactive needs a name, as does Shamus's formula for kill-watch-kill-watch. Anyone want to christen either idea with an official term?

I vote for combining kill-watch into Kwatch. That way when we get a game with too many cut scenes we can say that the game needs to be shot wight in the Kwatch.

 

[Graham_LRR]

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.

Boy am I glad these guy aren't in charge of gaming industry. I love cutscenes and I think free roaming games can have good stories. GTA, Assassin's Creed and MAFIA come to mind. Seriously, they didn't mention Mafia? The characters, the story progression and character development, the pacing slowly building up to a grand finale? And they didn't even mention it?!

I love cutscenes too! Just because I make fun of them doesn't mean I hate them

But seriously, what I said was sandbox gameplay opposes a good story. You may like the story in GTA IV (I thought it was very 1-dimensional myself, but whatever), but nothing you do in gameplay really affects it. All the cutscenes together might make an interesting movie about an immigrant rising the crime ranks, but as a story-telling medium sandbox games are useless because there's too much choice for the gamer.

Someone else in the thread mentioned an instance where in the plot Nico is trying to keep a low-profile, but in the game he's running over pedestrian and blowing up helicopters. This is an example of the gameplay and story being at odds.

A sandbox game must be open and non-linear. Stories aren't, so forcing a non-linear experience around a linear narrative will always feel contrived.

Disagree, we like getting locked out of and into choices, cuz we actually BUY the game, spend our money on ONE game, and want to be rewarded for multiple play thrus. Don't be so cocky and think that since u get to play lots of games that we all do. It would be dumb if your choices in dialogue had no effect. If that was the case, why even have them??? Gosh i dont like this guy.

Can't say as I much care for you either, friend.

I think you missed the part where I said I rarely get to play games. And I buy all my own games too, but thanks for making assumptions.

As to a real response, not everyone does like getting locked into a given choice, but regardless, I never said it was bad, just something I tend to bent out of shape about.
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.

Because the question was about storytelling in games, not what kind of dialogue trees are better.

 

[darkcommanderq]

I really have to disagree with Graham. Having different dialog choices have different options in the story is great. It means that me and my friends wont have the exact same play though, and it also means that the complete game map will be delayed a bit longer online than in other more linear games.

Bottom line, if your going to include a story, dynamic elements based on how characters interact is a GOOD thing. I hope the games that have started this never stop.

This is the type of thing that extra credits has been pointing towards in a lot of there episodes. Remember the one part in ME2 were James sat pondering whether to mind wipe, or kill the geth? Its good when games have to make us think for a change and not just button mash though pointless dialog trees with no meaning. (Why put them in in the first place?)

 

[Blackhawk670]

Could a game with no cutscenes, such as an fps in which you run from fight to fight while hearing the dialouge being spoken from your squad be successful?

 

[Littlee300]

What not to do

Although I loved how Splinter Cell had you

Spoiler

kill your own teammate

in co-op. Besides the confusing plot it was a pretty good story.
Metal gear solid 4 had an epic ending but most of it was just wut? I was really young when I played that game though... I wish the story had made the game-play more tense and immerse me though.