This thought has been flying around in my head for a while, and now that that one guy (ugh) made that horrible thread that makes everyone who likes video game stories look bad, I feel I should give it a try and make a positive one about VGstories
So anyway... it's been one of my favourite topics lately. Stories in video games. I don't like it when meh games get better reviews and reactions just for their stories. Conversely, I never disliked any game ever for its weak story.
In the past, I've given Mass Effect as an example, as I like the story, but can't be arsed to play it ever again. But that's just my taste in games. The story is fine, I guess, some of the characters quite interesting and all those conflicts - Reapers, Genophage, Geth, that bug-queen thing, Humans vs "Aliens", etc. - are all fascinating. It builds a highly intriguing universe.
And it hit me that I actually like that bit the most. The Mass Effect universe is awesome.
But I don't know if the actual story of the games is that good. Thing is, it's just some sci fi story. Dude(tte) lasers hideous bad guys in the face, trying to sound badass all the time. Because we've never seen that before.
ME is just an example, I'm not really trying to criticize it, it's just to illustrate what I mean. Stories of games are always a bit awkward because you have to keep throwing that one character into all the important bits and have him be awesome and all that.
It's worse in games like Skyrim or Half-Life - non-characters that silently (TES-dialogue isn't dialogue, it's choices) wander through the story happening around them. But again, Skyrim (and the other TES's) has some cool stories in some of the quests (nevermind all the lore!); and Half-Life has a universe just as awesome as Mass Effect's.
I think a lot of people only focus on the actual narrative of a game when they talk about story, and thusly don't like games like Skyrim or Half-Life for it. On the flipside, ... what, do I have no idea what I'm talking about when discussing video game stories because I prefer Half-Life to ... some cutscene-heavy character-driven chat-fest? Note how I can't actually think of a specific game^^ I'm not gonna compare HL to some RPG. Spec Ops maybe? Still haven't played it (but will!).
No, the point that I keep failing to finally get to (sorry) is that there is so much more that games can do than to read all lines in a script. In these discussions people keep trying to compare games to movies and books, because stories. It's not far-fetched as games try to be so much like movies all the time, but that's exactly the line of thinking I don't like. I don't like it that publishers think the more like a movie a game is the better it is; and I don't like that gamers believe that nonsense.
Sure, who cares what I like or not; and I don't really care that people like the games they like More gamers is always better (even if some of them spout nonsense like... that one guy)
I'm actually trying to get more people on the same page here!
Games are better than movies. Lots of "story-lovers" (sorry^^) say that occasionally, though I probably disagree on the reason. Writing in games still isn't top-notch, largely - partly because the genres (gritty sci fi, gritty fantasy, gritty military thing, gritty ... Grittiness) don't lend themselves to writing on the level of... Shakespeare/Dickens (... do we want that?^^)
Games are better than movies - but a lot like books in that regard - because they're soooooo much better at fleshing out their worlds. A game can, and indeed most great games do, have a ton of world-building details in every aspect of their "story-telling" - and not just the clunky audio-logs or small walls of text strewn around, but in plot-irrelevant chatter, in little side-stories, in the look and feel of your surroundings and its inhabitants. They also often have their own little expanded universe within themselves. They can tell you the history of everything in more than two sentences. And sometimes they tell you absolutely nothing and it's even better for it.
It's why old shooters, which are some of the dumbest games we've had, aren't actually worse just because their plot and narrative are laughably thin. They have odd torture rooms, a prison level, recently-abandoned apartments, tiny references to previous games if they're sequels. They're still full of "story" - and in a way more so than your everyday 8-hour-plot.
This is why I'm not some caveman who's still in love with Tetris and shuns the Mass Effects of this world - great games aren't just great because of what you do with your button presses, that's a silly idea (... though Tetris is still great; that feel when you clear 4 lines, hnngh ). Games are great when you see, hear and just feel that there is so much more. I always say gameplay is more important - that's because all those story-bits are still present during gameplay. It's not the worst offender by far, but in Mass Effect the story always grinds to a complete standstill whenever you "have to play the next part" - and vice versa.
It does mean, though, that I still don't really like games for their "story", as in the narrative. Because when they are too much like movies, what's the point? Movies already exist. When all the work goes into the plot and none into the world, then all we have is a video game plot - not exactly the highest of art forms. KotOR2 happens to be like that because the world was literally still unfinished. Oddly enough, I think the writing in KotOR2 was amazing - but completely wasted, so I hate the game.
Ultimately, I simply think mere traditional straight-forward story-telling is holding video games back a little because using games just for that is a waste of their incredible, nigh-unlimited potential to create not just one story, but entire worlds full of stories. They can be untold stories, but you know they're there.
That's how I love my video game stories.
tl,dr: world-building, setting, immersion, atmosphere > plot, dialogue, characters
(Do you have any idea how hard it is to write this nonsense without using the words "immersion" and "atmosphere"? holy shit!)
So anyway... it's been one of my favourite topics lately. Stories in video games. I don't like it when meh games get better reviews and reactions just for their stories. Conversely, I never disliked any game ever for its weak story.
In the past, I've given Mass Effect as an example, as I like the story, but can't be arsed to play it ever again. But that's just my taste in games. The story is fine, I guess, some of the characters quite interesting and all those conflicts - Reapers, Genophage, Geth, that bug-queen thing, Humans vs "Aliens", etc. - are all fascinating. It builds a highly intriguing universe.
And it hit me that I actually like that bit the most. The Mass Effect universe is awesome.
But I don't know if the actual story of the games is that good. Thing is, it's just some sci fi story. Dude(tte) lasers hideous bad guys in the face, trying to sound badass all the time. Because we've never seen that before.
ME is just an example, I'm not really trying to criticize it, it's just to illustrate what I mean. Stories of games are always a bit awkward because you have to keep throwing that one character into all the important bits and have him be awesome and all that.
It's worse in games like Skyrim or Half-Life - non-characters that silently (TES-dialogue isn't dialogue, it's choices) wander through the story happening around them. But again, Skyrim (and the other TES's) has some cool stories in some of the quests (nevermind all the lore!); and Half-Life has a universe just as awesome as Mass Effect's.
I think a lot of people only focus on the actual narrative of a game when they talk about story, and thusly don't like games like Skyrim or Half-Life for it. On the flipside, ... what, do I have no idea what I'm talking about when discussing video game stories because I prefer Half-Life to ... some cutscene-heavy character-driven chat-fest? Note how I can't actually think of a specific game^^ I'm not gonna compare HL to some RPG. Spec Ops maybe? Still haven't played it (but will!).
No, the point that I keep failing to finally get to (sorry) is that there is so much more that games can do than to read all lines in a script. In these discussions people keep trying to compare games to movies and books, because stories. It's not far-fetched as games try to be so much like movies all the time, but that's exactly the line of thinking I don't like. I don't like it that publishers think the more like a movie a game is the better it is; and I don't like that gamers believe that nonsense.
Sure, who cares what I like or not; and I don't really care that people like the games they like More gamers is always better (even if some of them spout nonsense like... that one guy)
I'm actually trying to get more people on the same page here!
Games are better than movies. Lots of "story-lovers" (sorry^^) say that occasionally, though I probably disagree on the reason. Writing in games still isn't top-notch, largely - partly because the genres (gritty sci fi, gritty fantasy, gritty military thing, gritty ... Grittiness) don't lend themselves to writing on the level of... Shakespeare/Dickens (... do we want that?^^)
Games are better than movies - but a lot like books in that regard - because they're soooooo much better at fleshing out their worlds. A game can, and indeed most great games do, have a ton of world-building details in every aspect of their "story-telling" - and not just the clunky audio-logs or small walls of text strewn around, but in plot-irrelevant chatter, in little side-stories, in the look and feel of your surroundings and its inhabitants. They also often have their own little expanded universe within themselves. They can tell you the history of everything in more than two sentences. And sometimes they tell you absolutely nothing and it's even better for it.
It's why old shooters, which are some of the dumbest games we've had, aren't actually worse just because their plot and narrative are laughably thin. They have odd torture rooms, a prison level, recently-abandoned apartments, tiny references to previous games if they're sequels. They're still full of "story" - and in a way more so than your everyday 8-hour-plot.
This is why I'm not some caveman who's still in love with Tetris and shuns the Mass Effects of this world - great games aren't just great because of what you do with your button presses, that's a silly idea (... though Tetris is still great; that feel when you clear 4 lines, hnngh ). Games are great when you see, hear and just feel that there is so much more. I always say gameplay is more important - that's because all those story-bits are still present during gameplay. It's not the worst offender by far, but in Mass Effect the story always grinds to a complete standstill whenever you "have to play the next part" - and vice versa.
It does mean, though, that I still don't really like games for their "story", as in the narrative. Because when they are too much like movies, what's the point? Movies already exist. When all the work goes into the plot and none into the world, then all we have is a video game plot - not exactly the highest of art forms. KotOR2 happens to be like that because the world was literally still unfinished. Oddly enough, I think the writing in KotOR2 was amazing - but completely wasted, so I hate the game.
Ultimately, I simply think mere traditional straight-forward story-telling is holding video games back a little because using games just for that is a waste of their incredible, nigh-unlimited potential to create not just one story, but entire worlds full of stories. They can be untold stories, but you know they're there.
That's how I love my video game stories.
tl,dr: world-building, setting, immersion, atmosphere > plot, dialogue, characters
(Do you have any idea how hard it is to write this nonsense without using the words "immersion" and "atmosphere"? holy shit!)