Necronic
Staff member
Yeah, I'll agree that games can tell stories in ways that just isn't possible for books too. But 9 times out of ten when people talk about a story in a game they are usually talking about a pretty standard story, the strangest aspect of it being that it's got a "choose-your-own adventure" element to it with different endings. When a game tells a story in a truly inventive or unique way, or when (using your buzzword) you experience something like emergent gameplay (which EvE may be the king of), that's beautiful. But that's not what happens in things like, say, Mass Effect, which is what people are usually talking about. That's just another version of "if you choose to open the box, turn to page seven!"
And yet people still find it gripping and want more of it. It's almost as if the method of storytelling is different, and what works in it is different from what works in other mediums.[DOUBLEPOST=1411501322,1411501291][/DOUBLEPOST]
You could have traded me something for it, over in that thread no one's using that I spent a whole 30 seconds making.
Necronic
Staff member
I'll agree with that. What works in books isn't what works in games, both have realms that they can excel in. Yet the stories you find most highly lauded in games are the ones that would work better in books. People finding that poorly shoe-horned style gripping doesn't say much to me. Remember, I started with the premise that gamers were highly illiterate (which I don't entirely agree with anymore).
As a similar example: just because a bunch of trekkies equate TNG with Shakespear doesn't mean that any legit Shakespear scholar would buy that. And I say this as someone who equates TNG with Shakespear.
GasBandit
Staff member
Steam me if you want character build tips. Game is a little... unforgiving at times.
I think people think Mass Effect's story is so great because they're confusing the plot with the characters. ME's cast of characters are, by and large, well developed characters who contribute well to the narrative. Hell, the worst party characters aren't even especially bad characters, they're just kind of dull compared to others. Jacob, usually considered the "worst" character, has a lot of good qualities as a character - he's intelligent, competent, stable, neither rash nor overcautious, and is content with being a good subordinate though he's capable of leading. The problem is that, for all that, he's forgettable. His loyalty mission is fairly quick and easy and doesn't really impact anything once it's done, unlike most of the others. He's not as especially poor squadmate but he's definitely not one of the better ones, and his dialogue is just... boring. Once I was past the point in the game where you had to take Jacob along, I just didn't. Even the other 3 characters that are often griped about: Kaidan, Ashley, and James*, are memorable and useful. Yes, Ashley starts off as a bit of a xenophobic bitch, but if you play Paragon, she grows out of that, and since the First Contact War blighted her family's name and stymied her career, it's sort of understandable. In action, she's very useful in combat heavy missions, especially with sniping. Kaidan's a bit quiet to start and sometimes a little whiny, but he's actually kind of badass when you use him and he has a few good lines here and there. I didn't like sacrificing him at Vermire but he went down a hero. James... I can see how he'd be kind of off-putting, but after a few conversations you get to see how the macho attitude is just a front he's using to cope with the enormous scale of events he's suddenly caught up in. He was also quite handy in missions where you'd have to defend a position for a while - he could take a lot of punishment and was very useful with heavy weapons. I also thought he was funny and the banter between him and Steve was entertaining.
The plot of Mass Effect itself is fairly standard science fiction, though at least the setting is much more fleshed out than most. Many - definitely not all, and I'm even hesitant to say "most" - things make sense for the world its in. The codex helps a lot, as well as seeing vast numbers of people of other races going through their daily lives - some of the overheard dialogue is really funny.
So, as someone who really, really enjoys ME, I'd say that it's plot isn't great, but is well supported by a solid setting and mostly memorable characters.
* ME3 James, not retarded anime James. God damn did Paragon Lost suck.
The plot of Mass Effect itself is fairly standard science fiction, though at least the setting is much more fleshed out than most. Many - definitely not all, and I'm even hesitant to say "most" - things make sense for the world its in. The codex helps a lot, as well as seeing vast numbers of people of other races going through their daily lives - some of the overheard dialogue is really funny.
So, as someone who really, really enjoys ME, I'd say that it's plot isn't great, but is well supported by a solid setting and mostly memorable characters.
* ME3 James, not retarded anime James. God damn did Paragon Lost suck.
Right. And he's supposed to be. But it makes him dull and forgettable. It doesn't help that basically his only memorable line is just bad. "...but the priiiiiiiiize..."
Saying that the story itself isn't very memorable in video games is the exact same criticism you can lay at the feet of any form of entertainment, from books, to movies, to comic books. The Walking Dead is just a zombie tv/game/comic, but the characters are what makes it compelling. Star Wars is just a rehash of the old action serials from the 50s, but it's what done with it that sets it apart.
I'd quit reiterating your obviously flawed premise, Necronic, that gamers are largely illiterate (because it sure sounds like you're not convinced). You're swimming in a ton of very well read, very well educated people on this board who very strongly disagree with your assessment of gamers.
I'd quit reiterating your obviously flawed premise, Necronic, that gamers are largely illiterate (because it sure sounds like you're not convinced). You're swimming in a ton of very well read, very well educated people on this board who very strongly disagree with your assessment of gamers.
Necronic
Staff member
Boiling Walking Dead down to just a matter of good characters does a dis-service to the author. There are a lot of very complex moral questions posed in it, that don't have answers spoon-ready feed us like some Ayn Rand garbage. To me that's a large part of what makes a good story. What does it make me think? Take for instance Richard Morgan's books. I like his writing, a lot, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the books are actually all that good. The same could be said for the vast majority of sci-fi and fantasy books (remember that for a point I will make below). Star Wars was a bit more intriguing for putting a stark black and white morality system (the light and dark side of the force), and then showing the characters, people we could really connect with, blurring those lines, existing on either side. Who is a hero, who is a villain? When you say "it's what's done with it that sets it apart" you are entirely correct. Star Wars took the tired morality plots of the old serials and turned them on their heads.
My premise wasn't that gamers are largely illiterate, and I really don't think you guys are. You guys represent a fairly more educted/sophisticated group than you would find on somewhere like...I dunno....Reddit. My premise is that games are a very bad platform for a standard novel-style story. My comment on illiteracy is more a hypothesis as to why gamers don't see this. But, its not really a fair point, because they do see this from time to time. Some of the recognized greatest story telling moments in games are ones that couldn't really exist in novels. Take the moment in the CoD MW when the nuclear blast goes off. They give us control of the guy, simply so he can crawl out of the chopper, look around at the blast, and die. The control we have is paramount to the feeling of helplessness, the unfairness of the moment. We as the player did everything right. We got to the goal. And our reward was the visceral hopelessness of the characters final moments. Fucking brilliant. Story elements like that can be a spice that adds a delicious twist to an already excellent game.
BUT. And HERE'S THE BUT. When you are using story in a game, it's only an additive feature. The game itself must be solid. CoD MW, regardless of what people say of the franchise as a whole, was a masterpiece of the genre. It could have had almost zero story and still been a great game. What pisses me off is when I see a game that is lauded as excellent for its story when the core gameplay is complete garbage, and I swear this happens a lot. The Fall is a good recent example. Really interesting concept/story, but the gameplay was so fucking jagged that I couldn't actually pay attention to it, and eventually just abandoned it. Assassin's Creed would be another one. Really fucking interesting story and environment. But the gameplay itself was repetitive and just not well thought out.
Then you have what I would claim is arguably the worst perpetrator of all. Fable. The fucking Fable franchise. What a god damned mess those are. The gameplay was just....like hilariously bad. They must have spent like 24 hours with balance testing. Yet it gets these amazing reviews because, and this is going to fly in the face of a previous statement, but because it could claim some kind of emergent narrative, which, frankly, was bullshit. The emergence was paper thin. But reviewers and the audience give this excessive weight to the narrative and forget that at its core it has to actually be a good god damned game.
Honestly I don't know why it bothers me so much. I'm not even sure if it does.
My premise wasn't that gamers are largely illiterate, and I really don't think you guys are. You guys represent a fairly more educted/sophisticated group than you would find on somewhere like...I dunno....Reddit. My premise is that games are a very bad platform for a standard novel-style story. My comment on illiteracy is more a hypothesis as to why gamers don't see this. But, its not really a fair point, because they do see this from time to time. Some of the recognized greatest story telling moments in games are ones that couldn't really exist in novels. Take the moment in the CoD MW when the nuclear blast goes off. They give us control of the guy, simply so he can crawl out of the chopper, look around at the blast, and die. The control we have is paramount to the feeling of helplessness, the unfairness of the moment. We as the player did everything right. We got to the goal. And our reward was the visceral hopelessness of the characters final moments. Fucking brilliant. Story elements like that can be a spice that adds a delicious twist to an already excellent game.
BUT. And HERE'S THE BUT. When you are using story in a game, it's only an additive feature. The game itself must be solid. CoD MW, regardless of what people say of the franchise as a whole, was a masterpiece of the genre. It could have had almost zero story and still been a great game. What pisses me off is when I see a game that is lauded as excellent for its story when the core gameplay is complete garbage, and I swear this happens a lot. The Fall is a good recent example. Really interesting concept/story, but the gameplay was so fucking jagged that I couldn't actually pay attention to it, and eventually just abandoned it. Assassin's Creed would be another one. Really fucking interesting story and environment. But the gameplay itself was repetitive and just not well thought out.
Then you have what I would claim is arguably the worst perpetrator of all. Fable. The fucking Fable franchise. What a god damned mess those are. The gameplay was just....like hilariously bad. They must have spent like 24 hours with balance testing. Yet it gets these amazing reviews because, and this is going to fly in the face of a previous statement, but because it could claim some kind of emergent narrative, which, frankly, was bullshit. The emergence was paper thin. But reviewers and the audience give this excessive weight to the narrative and forget that at its core it has to actually be a good god damned game.
Honestly I don't know why it bothers me so much. I'm not even sure if it does.
Necronic
Staff member
ooh, just thought of another good example where story added. Borderlands 2, when you kill Angel and Jack gives his speech. That was great. But it wouldn't have been half as great if I didn't have this huge turgid murder boner from the preceding 2 firefights that were masterfully orchestrated. Vs the final fight, which, gameplay wise, is pretty weak. I don't really care about Jack's final speech and it doesn't really make up for the bad fight.
Necronic
Staff member
Ok, so as a very broad for instance, lets look at the best "standard narrative style" story games for certain settings, and see how they compare against their equivalents in the same genre.
Wild West: Red Dead Redemption. Badass story (better game). Better story than Unforgiven? Deadwood? ....Two Mules for Sister Sarah?
Space Opera: Knights of the Old Republic? Better than Star Wars?
Sci-fi: Halo? I dunno what would be a good one. Better than 5th Element?
Near future/cyberpunk: Deus Ex? Better than Snow Crash? Neuromancer?
High Fantasy: Dragon Age Origins? I dunno what would be a good one, help me out. Better than Lord of the Rings?
Modern War/WWII: ....honestly I dunno. But could it beat Band of Brothers?
Help me out here. Name me a genre where a game tells the best story. I'm not even naming the best story since I'm sticking mostly to film. Now this isn't the most fair question, because games are relatively new. We're talking about only a decade or two of serious writing. But....help me out here, has a game ever even come close?
Going back to a previous point I made, I will admit this. Games may have written the best horror stories out there. Silent Hill or Amnesia are both just incredibly fucking nuts.
[DOUBLEPOST=1411518906,1411518851][/DOUBLEPOST]
Wild West: Red Dead Redemption. Badass story (better game). Better story than Unforgiven? Deadwood? ....Two Mules for Sister Sarah?
Space Opera: Knights of the Old Republic? Better than Star Wars?
Sci-fi: Halo? I dunno what would be a good one. Better than 5th Element?
Near future/cyberpunk: Deus Ex? Better than Snow Crash? Neuromancer?
High Fantasy: Dragon Age Origins? I dunno what would be a good one, help me out. Better than Lord of the Rings?
Modern War/WWII: ....honestly I dunno. But could it beat Band of Brothers?
Help me out here. Name me a genre where a game tells the best story. I'm not even naming the best story since I'm sticking mostly to film. Now this isn't the most fair question, because games are relatively new. We're talking about only a decade or two of serious writing. But....help me out here, has a game ever even come close?
Going back to a previous point I made, I will admit this. Games may have written the best horror stories out there. Silent Hill or Amnesia are both just incredibly fucking nuts.
[DOUBLEPOST=1411518906,1411518851][/DOUBLEPOST]
Rave may not be the right word, but you can't say it was put in the trashbin. It scored pretty damned well and won a lot of awards.[DOUBLEPOST=1411519074][/DOUBLEPOST]
I guess it is sort of subjective. Surprised you disagree with almost everything I am saying though. I said a lot.
You hit on exactly why these are unfair comparisons. It wasn't until relatively recently that movies were believed to be able to tell a story nearly as well as books could, and some will still argue that this isn't the case.
You're cherrypicking the best from a medium that's over 150 years old for film, thousands of years old if you're comparing it to books, to a medium that has only existed for less than 40 years. Of course fluff pop entertainment is always going to be fluff pop entertainment. For every cranked out Halo, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of books every year that make the story in Halo look like the best storytelling on the planet.
You're also largely ignoring recent seminal works that use the medium in a new way which doesn't simply ape storytelling in other forms, but uses the medium itself to tell a compelling story such as Gone Home, The Stanley Parable, or Telltale's The Walking Dead.
You're cherrypicking the best from a medium that's over 150 years old for film, thousands of years old if you're comparing it to books, to a medium that has only existed for less than 40 years. Of course fluff pop entertainment is always going to be fluff pop entertainment. For every cranked out Halo, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of books every year that make the story in Halo look like the best storytelling on the planet.
You're also largely ignoring recent seminal works that use the medium in a new way which doesn't simply ape storytelling in other forms, but uses the medium itself to tell a compelling story such as Gone Home, The Stanley Parable, or Telltale's The Walking Dead.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah. I guess I need to really clarify my point that I like it as a medium when it really takes advantage of the potential for the medium instead of just aping the forms found in books or movies. I thought I had said that, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. And the timeline thing is truly unfair. But if they ape, I don't think they will ever succeed, and a lot of it seems to do that. In fairness though, going a different route, like the Stanley Parable, has to be monumentally challenging.
You know, the difficulties in changing mediums isn't new. When you go from books to plays the medium changes and the writing should as well. Same with plays to film. This was a real problem with early film, it tried to ape (I like that term) theater, and it didn't work well at all. Gaming needs to find its feet as well. I'm just skeptical of it because, unlike all previous transitions, gaming, as a medium, isn't primarily about telling a story. It's about being a game. Accomplishing those dual roles is a challenge no other medium has had to do. My (admittedly subjective) opinion is that it gets it wrong far more often than it gets it right. The Stanley Parables are the exceptions more often than not, because in a lot of people's minds they aren't even really games at that point. They are something that transcends gaming, an entirely new experience.
You know, the difficulties in changing mediums isn't new. When you go from books to plays the medium changes and the writing should as well. Same with plays to film. This was a real problem with early film, it tried to ape (I like that term) theater, and it didn't work well at all. Gaming needs to find its feet as well. I'm just skeptical of it because, unlike all previous transitions, gaming, as a medium, isn't primarily about telling a story. It's about being a game. Accomplishing those dual roles is a challenge no other medium has had to do. My (admittedly subjective) opinion is that it gets it wrong far more often than it gets it right. The Stanley Parables are the exceptions more often than not, because in a lot of people's minds they aren't even really games at that point. They are something that transcends gaming, an entirely new experience.
Then you have games that try entirely too much to be like movies, to the point where you ask youself, "Am I even fucking playing this stupid thing?" This is especially notable with games like Heavy Rain, Metal Gear, and Beyond: Two Souls. And one of the major problems is that they're focusing more on story than gameplay, but they're telling fucking terrible stories.
figmentPez
Staff member
Games are a very young medium. From the time the very first video games were made to the last console generation, is about the same length of time from the very first silent films up to the Marx Brothers movies. Take a look at Duck Soup or The Coconauts, these are not the pinnacles of storytelling. They're funny, and groundbreaking, but they're not very cohesive. People were still learning how to use film as a medium, but you'd have to be a fool to say that Duck Soup proves that films are inferior to books or the theater. Yet, I imagine there were many fools from that era who derided movies as cheap entertainment that would never match live theater, or a good book.
The games of today, remarkable as they are, are likely not the pinnacle of what games can be. Anyone who looks at games and says "meh, this medium can't tell stories as well as books" is like someone watching a Marx Brothers film and deciding that they'll go back to the theater because Arsenic and Old Lace is much more of a cohesive story.
The games of today, remarkable as they are, are likely not the pinnacle of what games can be. Anyone who looks at games and says "meh, this medium can't tell stories as well as books" is like someone watching a Marx Brothers film and deciding that they'll go back to the theater because Arsenic and Old Lace is much more of a cohesive story.
And, for every Lawrence of Arabia, there are hundreds of shitty movies. For every Lord of the Rings, there are hundreds of shitty fantasy novels. Spec Ops: The Line is a great example of storytelling in videogames based around a traditional gameplay model done right (which along with Apocalypse Now officially makes Heart of Darkness the most adaptable piece of literature ever). And it shares a release schedule with a ton of other games that are just crappy entertainment. I think the interactive nature of video games gives it the ability to tell a story in a way that is completely different than movies or books.
If a story is great, but you're the one informing and molding the story, does that make the story any less great?
I see this less as a discussion and more as an argument you've had bottled up for a long time and have been itching to unleash--I say this primarily because you keep replying to yourself more than to others. That's my guess as to why Bowie just did a sweep of "disagree across the board".
Necronic
Staff member
I've seen that one listed as a good example of story in games, but I've also seen it as a game with pretty vanilla gameplay.
It doesn't. But....it makes the story harder to tell. In a way...does it corrupt the story? I read something in the emergent narrative wiki where the writer from Deus Ex said that an open-ended narrative can never be as compelling as a traditional linear narrative. Here's the link to the article:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/03/27/gdc-2004-warren-spector-talks-games-narrative
figmentPez
Staff member
Games that told a very good story:
- Thomas Was Alone
- Far Cry 2
- Psychonauts
- Planescape: Torment
- Papo & Yo
I would definitely argue that Psychonauts is on par with Robert Asprin's Myth series of books. It's a little goofy and all over the place at times, and some tangents are there just for spoofing something, and a lot of the characters are cliches, but it's still a lot of fun.
Also, I think that Papo & Yo made it's point in a way that movies can't. I think the player's interaction with that world gave it a different impact than telling the same story through a movie could have.[DOUBLEPOST=1411521338,1411521141][/DOUBLEPOST]
- Thomas Was Alone
- Far Cry 2
- Psychonauts
- Planescape: Torment
- Papo & Yo
I would definitely argue that Psychonauts is on par with Robert Asprin's Myth series of books. It's a little goofy and all over the place at times, and some tangents are there just for spoofing something, and a lot of the characters are cliches, but it's still a lot of fun.
Also, I think that Papo & Yo made it's point in a way that movies can't. I think the player's interaction with that world gave it a different impact than telling the same story through a movie could have.[DOUBLEPOST=1411521338,1411521141][/DOUBLEPOST]
Those comments make me think that Warren Spector needs to spend some time playing pen & paper RPGs with a really creative dungeon master.
I'd be interested to hear what he has to say now over 10 years later, particularly when video games are starting to come into their own as a storytelling medium. The thinking that directed narratives are the only way to tell a compelling story is becoming an outmoded way of thinking.
Every artform needs its pioneers to lead the way in shaping what will become the framework on which other artists can work. We need our Citizen Kanes and The Seventh Sign's to push the envelope. Many of the games I've mentioned are doing just that.
It was better than anything that had come out within a few years of it's release. It might not be better than Deadwood, but it was TONS better than The Quick and The Dead, which I believe was the next closest big budget western to it's release. It's certainly better than a lot of the shlock from the Western era.
Kotor 1? Maybe. Kotor 2? Definitely.
It's a bit unfair to compare it to the two defining books on the genre. No, but it's way better than stuff like I, Robot (the movie, not the book), Eagle Eye, or Repo.
How about Xenosaga/Xenogears? Forgiving the second disk of Xenogears (they ran out of money because half the budget was transfer to FF8), it's still a highly compelling sci-fi story colored by Gnosticism, full of interesting characters, places, and such. Xenosaga 1-3 was a much better prequel than Episodes 1-3 could ever hope to be.
But you want a real killer example? Okami. I haven't seen a film that comes ANYWHERE near close to examining the relation between gods and their followers as well as Okami did. Not only do you see what a fully realized god can do for it's people, you also see the responsibilities that each side has and what happens if ether side gives up.
Ignoring the compelling narratives, intriguing plots, ways for the player to influence the shape or let it affect them in a more interactive way than possible in other mediums--the original statement was hating story in games.
If a game is just some blocks and shapes affecting other blocks and shapes, it gets called a casual game.
Even with great gameplay, motivation will keep me going longer than I might if I'm just doing random shit. Mario game--red block, hops on other blocks, gets to other block, game ends. That's some vanilla Atari shit right there. I can't think of a single game I've played recently that I'd have enjoyed as much without some goal or directive in a narrative of even one so simple as "go do this thing because." That's like severing music from emotion and expecting a person to dance to it. If there is a conflict--and that's one thing games excel at providing in one way or another--then you have a story, even one so simple as cross the desert, as shoot 1,000 guys, as collect cards for some reason. Again, ignoring gaming as an art form or storytelling vehicle. Just talking goals. Mario saving the princess is a simple, unimportant, not-even-good story, but it's still a story.
I doubt Wasteland 2 would be improved if you were just dropped on map after map, no context, no setting, no characters, just pretty pictures and numbers.
If a game is just some blocks and shapes affecting other blocks and shapes, it gets called a casual game.
Even with great gameplay, motivation will keep me going longer than I might if I'm just doing random shit. Mario game--red block, hops on other blocks, gets to other block, game ends. That's some vanilla Atari shit right there. I can't think of a single game I've played recently that I'd have enjoyed as much without some goal or directive in a narrative of even one so simple as "go do this thing because." That's like severing music from emotion and expecting a person to dance to it. If there is a conflict--and that's one thing games excel at providing in one way or another--then you have a story, even one so simple as cross the desert, as shoot 1,000 guys, as collect cards for some reason. Again, ignoring gaming as an art form or storytelling vehicle. Just talking goals. Mario saving the princess is a simple, unimportant, not-even-good story, but it's still a story.
I doubt Wasteland 2 would be improved if you were just dropped on map after map, no context, no setting, no characters, just pretty pictures and numbers.
I was thinking about it, and while the *plot* of the Mass Effect games remains the same regardless of your choices, the *story* changes. One way, it's the saga of a ruthless pragmatist who won't hesitate to betray or murder trusted friends and doom entire races to extinction in order to achieve their goals. Another way, it's the story of an idealist who has to overcome centuries of racial conflict to forge an alliance capable of standing against an implacable foe. Those are two very different stories, even if the events in them are the same.
Necronic
Staff member
I guess I wasn't clear in my point, but it's not that story is inherently bad. It's that as a studio you have finite development resources, and story takes some part of those. At some point you've put too many resources into the story you're actually hurting the quality of the game itself. A Wasteland 2 that had less story would have far more depth in its gameplay, a far more complex combat model. It would be a Jagged Alliance 2 style game.
And we're never really talking about a game with zero story, because you're right, that would be insane. Your example was spot on though, the farthest extreme of the minimal story are the Mario games, its just enough to motivate you from place to place. Then there's the game where there's a bit more story but you can't really tell if any thought was ever put into them, like Ninja Gaiden, Tenchu, or Jagged Alliance.
One of my coworkers keeps trying to get everyone else to join him. I haven't, yet.
--Patrick
Just so you know, the writers of the video game have almost zero to do with the actual development of gameplay or coding outside of imagining set pieces. Unless you're talking about indie developer/creator games like Fez, which usually have minimal to no story.
