Almos

Stories in games. A necessity, possibility or just an annoyance?

Recommended Posts

The end of the world is looming.

Someone screwed something up and now the Earth is at the brink of destruction. Democracy, freedom and American Way of Life are in danger. All hopes are gone, save for one.

You.

Yes, the burden of saving our precious world rests on your very shoulders. Being the superman you are, you have been chosen from the grey, anonymous masses of the humankind, given the best equipment, and sent to face the danger. Alone. Should you fail, the world as we know it will no longer be.

But then, I ask: how many times are we to be told the same story? Or, for that matter, do we really need stories - or can we live without them? Come on, the story is but an excuse. We don't really need any justification for blasting away those zombies/demons/aliens or whatever, save for that we just had a bad day and need to relax.

The reason for which I ask this very question is manifold. First, the concept of inserting storyline into game is quite popular at the moment. It's almost as if the ludic quality of games had been abandoned in favor of their storytelling potential. "Dreamfall" is possibly the most striking example of this trend. On the other hand, there's a problem with actually integrating the two halves of the game - namely the storyline and gameplay, or, more precisely speaking, challenge. From what I know the designers of "Dreamfall" wanted to create a game where there would be no challenge. And the effect was, to say the least, ambiguous. For the challenge, at least in my opinion, is the core of the game. Without a challenge there's no game. The challenge is what makes us engaged. That's what I loved in "Wing Commander" - this game was challenging. Not overly difficult, and not overly easy. It was all about facing the challenge and proving oneself. Now, if you take away the challenge from the game, what remains?

Perhaps freedom to interact with the environment the way we see fit. Perhaps engaging storyline. But then it's no longer a game, I say. It's an excellent piece of computer art, like for instance Ghuinola's "Noctis" or aforementioned "Dreamfall". But in all these examples you're no longer playing a game, you're appreciating a piece of fine art.

Which is not to say that we cannot integrate story and gameplay. "Endless Nova" is an excellent example of this. The key was propagation of the save points: when fighting the enemy I felt I'm in genuine danger, and that there's no turning back. This made me feel like if I was inside the story, like I was one of the protagonists - and not the spectator. Another example: Mike Singleton's "Lords of Midnight". A game whose graphics had aged, but the core concepts behind it didn't. Here the story and the gameplay were expertly integrated: you felt like playing a part, and not just watching it unfold.

The other reason for which I ask the question is that I'm making my own piece of adventure game, using point&click adventure game construction set commonly known as "Adventure Game Studio". And the game's VERY story-oriented. However, after having read some of the articles out there on Gamedev website I started to doubt if it's the right way. Same after reading THIS post on Devmaster:

http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4543

Playing a game vs. telling a story. Or is it really a contradiction? I'd be happy to know your opinion.

PS. (I'd also be happy NOT GETTING FLAMED because of the lenght of this post. Thank you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's futile to look for one single ultimate definition of what a Video game is. It's all about personal preference, really. I like a good story in a game, so I will gravitate towards games that feature them. Others might think the opposite.

As for when they are combined, that doesn't at all have to be dichotomous. There are plenty of ways to integrate story and game; as many ways as there are games. I don't see any conflict between them, but you might believe there to be one if you look at the examples where the fusion went bad. It's difficult to pull it off, but then the entire craft of making video games is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone finds notes or a transcript of Ernest Adams' most recent GDC talk please post it, as it presented a new way of thinking about story and games that was awesome.

I can't really do it justice, but essentially he began thinking about interactive storytelling as a game of roleplaying or improvised theater, where both the designer and player have a responsibility to the story. The credibility of the story is essentially the "magic circle". Step out of the circle (i.e. draw too much from the story's "credibility budget") and the game breaks, and in fact it should refuse to continue. The player is expected to stick to his role, and the designer is expected to facilitate stories within the scope of that role.

Again it's really hard to do the lecture justice, because he stated a sort of elusive obvious. I hope there will be a transcript of it.

Edit: found a decent writeup

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/03/gdc_a_new_visio.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing a game vs. telling a story. Or is it really a contradiction? I'd be happy to know your opinion.

short answer, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at early film (really early) the "stories" being presented were beyond ridiculous, even more simplistic and formulaic than those we see in most video games. It's only a matter of time before the industry at large learns the type of stories and storytelling that best suit the medium.

A standout example to me is Ico, which tells a very compelling story that's heavy on immersiveness and emotion, and light on exposition; this seems to be the type of story best suited to gaming. The "story" has as much to do with the arc of emotion presented as it does with any kind of discrete narrative.

Another good example to me is the Zelda series. Games are VERY sequel-heavy, because the nature of gameplay means that iterative improvement is generally beneficial. The way that Miyamoto reconciled these sequels, which from a pure continuity standpoint are probably both contradictory and redundant, is by literally turning the series into an actual "legend" that has more in common with mythology than a literary narrative. This is shown in the introduction to The Wind Waker. It's very similar to what we have in superhero comics, a modern mythology that is constantly being reinvented and retold, except in the case of Zelda--at least for now--a lot better maintained since the original creator is still in charge of the whole thing and it's held to an extremely high standard.

Then we have the likes of Schafer, who tell stories that are, in general, more literary. Traditionally he used the adventure medium, for which this discussion isn't really as meaningful. There isn't really a very strong gameplay core there that raises the questions of story vs. gameplay. They can just sort of coexist because neither one has to assert itself too strongly over the other. This can be seen as a negative point, but in my opinion it isn't really one. It's no different from something like Clerks existing as a film. There's no strong cinematography or filmic techniques going on, but that doesn't make it not valid as a movie. (If you don't like Clerks, insert your own example using a similar dialogue-dominated structure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing a game vs. telling a story. Or is it really a contradiction? I'd be happy to know your opinion.

Long answer, maybe.

When we're talking about the story of a game in this discussion, we mean the mechanism that are placed there deliberately by the developer such that the player experiences particular events (rather than say, a multiplayer FPS where a "story" might be how you fought through 6 guys to get the flag back to your base or something).

The reason I think there is a contradiction between playing the game and telling the story is that a game provides an environment in which the player can perform (to a limited degree) free actions. The extreme of this is a sandbox game like Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto, where users are free to perform a very wide variety of actions within the game context (the "play" part of the game) that may have no positive effect on the narrative. This freedom runs against the deliberate nature of a plot (for example, were you to kill a plot-critical NPC in a fully free game, you would break the plot).

It's no accident that the games we think of as having great gameplay tend to sacrifice something plotwise (and vice versa). Games like Metal Gear Solid or Half Life 2 demonstrate the opposite to the sandbox genre, these are heavily story-driven games that demonstrate very high linearity and make for a less "free" experience. You can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess.

Games with great gameplay and weak story elements tend to have great replay value while those with weaker gameplay (where the gameplay is strictly tied to the story in some way) tend to be a more memorable experience.

I'm a ludologist at heart, so I'm sure the narratologists here will rip into this a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is gameplay in adventure games, one of the oldest forms of game in fact, namely the riddle. In the old point and clicks there is zero twitch, and 100% intellectual puzzle solving (assuming it's done well and the solutions aren't completely random).

And as it has been said already, story and gameplay are in no way mutually exclusive. You can choose to emphasize one over another, depending on where your tastes and strengths as a game maker lie. If you're really good you'll add both, in such a way that the player can somewhat ignore one aspect if they desire. Few designers are that good.

One more thing. Gameplay is very similar between games. It is difficult to invent a new genre, which is what you have to do if you want your gameplay to truly stand out. Graphics and art style only seperate you a bit, again unless you come up with something that looks truly different. So, story is often essential to seperate your game from the hundreds of silimar games out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone finds notes or a transcript of Ernest Adams' most recent GDC talk please post it, as it presented a new way of thinking about story and games that was awesome.

Edit: found a decent writeup

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/03/gdc_a_new_visio.html

Whoah, there's a link to our Façade thread in there. In fact they use Duncan's transcript to make a point. That I didn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that kind of came out of nowhere. Crazy.

...Students of game design are of course familiar with the famous "Audrey transcript"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Sudoku could use a better story.

I think you should live the story in a game rather then being told it.

Ofcourse a lot of games can do without a story, or event a setting (e.g. you crashed with a spaceship/plane/boat/... on a deserted/... planet/island/building/... and you want to get back home/save earth/... doing so you have to defeat the enemy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing. Gameplay is very similar between games. It is difficult to invent a new genre, which is what you have to do if you want your gameplay to truly stand out. Graphics and art style only seperate you a bit, again unless you come up with something that looks truly different. So, story is often essential to seperate your game from the hundreds of silimar games out there.

I think that for the most part stories suffer the same problems, and that distinguishing a game through a good story is at least as difficult as distinguishing a game through original artistic design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoah, there's a link to our Façade thread in there. In fact they use Duncan's transcript to make a point. That I didn't know.

Wow that is awesome Duncan, high five :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Score! I never really thought about the classifications, but I guess that for the most part I'm something of a narratologist. (oh god, I actually used the word. Fucking shoot me.) You say that games can be turned from a game into art by virtue of a story, and seem to think of that as a bad thing. What's wrong with appreciating a good work of art? You gotta pick the focus for yourself. What do you have more fun with? It could be a good game either way, it's just that you'll attract a different audience depending on the direction you go.

And Twilo, sorry to burst your bubble, but I actually enjoy the GTA storyline. Little things like the fact that your appartment in portland in LCS happens to be the burnt-out shell of a building in GTA3 make that universe work for me, and the characters always interest me. I think if you're looking for proof that Ludology and Narratology can be reconciled, that game is one of the better examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, I say you should call the shots as they come. Generally speaking, I think a story line is a necessity, especially in campaign-based fps's, which therefor provide exciement to stimulate both sides of the brain. Deus Ex was perfect because besides the kickayss gameplay and level design, it's story was flawlessly involving and you cared about the characters in the game. Even little things like giving names to places and people (including hobos and other individual NPCs) made Deus Ex a much more compelling and real experience. And of course, the purpose of most adventure, RPG's and puzzle games is to tell a story with intermediate gameplay, so in those cases, I say a story is manditory, and an interresting one too. Grim Fandango and Monkey Island were huge achievements because of their humor and storytelling power.

However, I think that if you try to force a story where it doesn't belong, it takes away from the game. A perfect example is the arena-based fps's like Tribes and Unreal Tournament, which are there only to entertain us with mindblowing, brainless multiplayer fun. Trying to intigrate a story often distracts the players and leads to terribly (terribly) cliched plots that leave the player wishing the game just had no plot at all. It also inevitably limits the game to environments and technologies within the scope of the storyline, taking away from the fun of the game. You don't care why there's a floating gladetorial arena hoverring somewhere between San Fransisco and our Moon, why should the scriptwriters. Even in the latest Worms Mayhem game, the plot felt forced and shallow, and used some lame time-travel adventure to try and connect the five different arena-types you were allowed to battle in in the game. It was so different from the original Worms, in which the 2D arenas were not about the subject but about the abstract profile of the ground as opposed to the 3D arenas, which are more literal and less imaginative (diversity-wise), as they stick more or less to those 5 very limiting environments.

In simpler games, like platformers and shooters, it's your call. Almost invariably, a plot is nice and can lead to amazing RPG hybrids such as Ika-chan and Cave Story, both available free from the Japanese game developer Pixel. However, if you don't like story-driven games or are aiming for a less-varried game like PacMan or DigDug, a story isn't necissary at all. With simple, 2D games, and, now that I think about it, all games, a story has to either be either there 100%, or (almost) not there at all. Unless you are a skilled developer and can perfectly ballance gameplay and story, the perfect game should be built off whatever aspect of gaming it focusses on. A story-driven game should have an involving plot that is intigrated into every aspect of the game, such that the gameplay is almost secondary and the story is involving enough to easily fill up a novel. A game which focusses on gameplay should have a lose plot at best, so that the imagination of the designers and players is not constricted by a storyline (or even logic, for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Twilo, sorry to burst your bubble, but I actually enjoy the GTA storyline.

By all means, I'm sure a lot of people like GTA's story; my point was that GTA has a very strong open gameplay system, which makes it hard to present the story within the game itself (as opposed to in a cutscene, which GTA does pretty well).

What I mean is that there are two parts to GTA, the story and the game. When the story is running, the game stops and when the game is running the story stops. I think the balance you talk about is how the gameplay relates to the story (the environment, for example), how plausible that is etc. which helps the gamer associate the plot sequences with the gameplay ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now