A few years ago, a lovely chap writing a thesis on gaming visited PC Gamer to chat about what they believed made a great game. I remember incoherently trotting out the usual buzzwords: story, characterisation, freedom. In my head flickered Planescape, Deus Ex, System Shock 2... I really believed that story is all.
What a fool I was. How could I not see that story is what's holding games back from true greatness? Show me your finest cutscene, your most shocking twist, your most moving endgame cinematic, and I will give you exactly the same response as I would to the worst, the most predictable, the most leaden. All it does is rub in my face all the things the game won't let me do myself.
Worse, it forces the game down a path it's simply not capable of walking convincingly. Even the best-written action-centric game still clings to the three-act structure of a movie - which means last-act escalation, raising stakes, excitement and tension above what's gone before.
In a movie, this involves the big setpieces being wheeled out, the rules of physics and logic discarded. In a game with a fixed control set, it's trickier. A developer may decide to grant the player new abilities, or plunge him into a totally different scenario. This risks either incoherence and fizzle-out (eg, BioShock), or a sharp upwards turn in the learning curve - see Crysis's sudden and punishing introduction of plane-flying.
Alternatively, the game can reduce the player's options, enforcing a limited range of actions to ensure the final scenes play out as the story dictates. The very obvious example is quick-time events, a feeble excuse for showing almost anything on-screen, but requiring only that the player press a predetermined sequence of buttons - a thin veil of interactivity.
Fahrenheit's late-game frenzy of Simon Says, for example, but BioShock's mechanical boss fight is a rarefied variant of the same crime. Rig it so a player can only press the keys you want and you can show anything on the screen. Dance, monkey, dance.
A third route still is to bombard the player with ever-harder odds - see Assassin's Creed's plunge into unsubtle melee misery in its final level, or Far Cry's hatefully hard Trigen mobbing. It's a lazy and archaic way to build to a narrative's conclusion - creating tension by punishing the player. It can work the other way - Half-Life 2's climactic citadel assault and super-gravity gun, for instance, which essentially turns the cheat mode on and successfully tricks you into thinking you're a superman.
That's a rare beast though, and also somewhat related to Valve's prescient understanding that narrative needs to be dialled back and unobtrusive, rather than cruelly cracking its whip against the poor game's flank.
When story is relaxed, a game can be a game. When story dictates, the game tries to be something it isn't, and fails. Think about games without story - Team Fortress 2, Audiosurf, Peggle - and how free they are from those terrible moments of collapse. Their only narrative is the one you create as you play.
Desires and goals formed on the fly in direct response to what's happening are infinitely more effective than Giant Endgame Boss With Lasers For Eyes.
What is happening here? Has someone posted an article just to get comments (in which case I have fallen directly into the trap), because I can't see any other reason for such a ludicrous statement. Story gets in the way of gameplay? By that token, pong would surely be the greatest game of all time? Rubbish. Story DEFINES gameplay, gives you a reason to do what you are doing, and makes sure there are potential rewards and penalties for every action. Is this article perhaps the rant of a bad developer making excuses?
I have never disagreed with an article so much in my entire life. Great singleplayer experiences & stories are what keep me playing games. I dont like online play & get bored with multiplayers really quickly. With the exception of Pro Evo, but even then its normaly while drinking & lads are round.
the max paynes series simply prooves everything in the above article to be total pap.
Story drives a game on, story keeps you interested, story makes the gameplay sections more rewarding imo.
I find it laughable that the same mag that recently ran a max payne article - centering on the fact that developers should make MORE story drive 'playable movies' should then turn around and publish this pish a mere few weeks later!
Show me a game without a story - and ill show you a game i'll never play (with the exception of sports games).
I think what he is trying to convey is that games are a special media completely seperate from movies.
In a movie you must follow the same path, with the same twists, the same peices all flowing the same direction.
Many games play like this, with a directional flow, predetermined events, etc. But games can be soo much more.
In a game there is potential for the player themselves to make a story. They can dictate the climaxes, the twists, and the flow of the story.
Trying to make a game a movie is holding the game back from being what it could potentially be.
If this is what he's trying to say then I share his sentiments. But the technology is not there yet. Nor is the incentive to make games that are completely player driven. That would require a huge investment to reach that kind of interactivity.
Now, personally for me, some of the greatest games I've played have been story driven. Zelda: OOT, FF, KOTOR, all have story as a core element of the game.
I think once a game makes an emotional connection with you, no matter what emotion it is, it becomes an experience that is not easily forgotten. If I play a game and I end up caring or being interested deeply in the story it becomes a classic.
I've never posted a comment on this page before but now i just had to, says something about the article..
There a a very large bunch of games I've never would have played if they didn't have a story. Just finished Condemned (yea i know it's old but had to try it now that the second is here ) and I stayed to the end just because of the story. I had to see what happened and what was going on with Ethan. Otherwise I would have played for a while but running around in the same place just doing nothing is not really my kind of game.
Some games uses the story as something to prevent players from making things or going ways the developer didn't have time/was too lazy/didn't care to include in the game. That does not say that story is bad, only that the developer should have thought more about those things.
The thing about story is that you should use it to capture the player, making him want to see what happens and lead him forward but in a subtle way. He should not feel guided. You are making him go a special direction, but he should think that is his own choice. A lot of games fail in that way tho, that I must agree with.
Team Fortress 2, Audiosurf, Peggle.. well, great examples. Thats just games that would not benifit from a story, or that could have a story but no one would care. Try making your point in the adventure game genre.. "well, you're this girl who doesn't know who she is and gets teleported to a different dimension. Then you get to do whatever you want to. You can run around doing whatever you feel like. Quests? Missions? Finding out who you are? Naah.. story is dead."
For god's sake it's a DEVIL's ADVOCATE article people. The only valid response is a curt 'lol' - or a discussion which does not take, as a starting point, the idea that the author of the article *really* wants story to die.
It's part of Devil's Advocate feature in the mag i.e. they always have arguments like this to stir debate, and I commend them for it.
I think it's completely true that many games focus too much on the story driving the game, when it should be the other way round like HL2 and Bioshock for example...I think he makes some valid points.
Show me your finest cutscene, your most shocking twist, your most moving endgame cinematic.
Thats too easy...Knights of the Old Republic. You can't tell me the first time you played that game and found out who you are you weren't surprised.
I've done this to death before, and I'm sure I will again, but I still find it hard to believe that people didn't see that one coming. Personally, I was waiting for it after the second dream sequence, a good what, 10-15 hours (?) before the "big reveal".
What is happening here? Has someone posted an article just to get comments (in which case I have fallen directly into the trap), because I can't see any other reason for such a ludicrous statement.
You appear to have failed to read the title of the article.
http://dictionary.reference.com/Devil's Advocate –noun 1. a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.
So yes, it probably is a ridiculous notion (albeit with potential for grains of truth as is usually the case), made in the interest of generating reasoned analysis and debate.
EDIT: As I see a few people have already pointed out.
As I read this, I thought to myself "Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2. For f**k's sake what about Hal- Ah there we go."
Oblivion is the only game I can think of that combines a well written plot with a completely free environment and pulls it off spectacularly. Endless play time there because you can restart the game and do it completely differently.
Whilst I have to admit I own all the story-less games you mentioned (partially due to them ALL being Steam games) I do still enjoy sitting down and immersing myself in a universe. That is why I am such a huge Bioware fan. Bioware do it perfectly for me.
I could support the argument that angry responses to this column are exactly what should be expected, but playing Devil's Advocate in this context may in fact rupture the fabric of space-time...
Dead right about Bioshock though, the final third of that game was terrible.
What is happening here? Has someone posted an article just to get comments (in which case I have fallen directly into the trap), because I can't see any other reason for such a ludicrous statement.
You appear to have failed to read the title of the article.
http://dictionary.reference.com/Devil's Advocate –noun 1. a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.
So yes, it probably is a ridiculous notion (albeit with potential for grains of truth as is usually the case), made in the interest of generating reasoned analysis and debate.
EDIT: As I see a few people have already pointed out.
I didn't miss the fact that Devil's Advocate was there, but I must admit that I don't read PC gamer so did not know this was a regular feature there. The fact is I disagree with what was said, and as Shadow wolf has pointed out it was obviously posted in order to spark debate, which is a good thing.
I stand by the fact that I disagree with pretty much everything in this article (although I'm ADDICTED to peggle), and whilst I can see that story can sometimes constrict a game to the point of making it entirely linear, a GOOD story can hold a game together and make you want to play just to see the next development. Right, back to peggle.
Games I have found that managed to mix narrative well in a way that differs from the progression seen in movies include:
Shadow of the Colossus: A subtle revelation of the story with each victory you received, a very minimalist and subtle storytelling technique that seems only capable within a videogame
Portal: It told the story as an extension of the basic gameplay, again it is minimalist way of telling the story where exploration of the environment can enrich your experience
I think in the past only really special games have been able to stand out in this respect whilst most have used the most common form of storytelling to get their point across. I think now with the new maturity that can be found in videogames recently storytelling techniques will emerge that provide for greater connection with the mode of engagement with the games themselves.
And another point: whilst I found the base elements of the Bioshock progression a bit stunted I found their thematic focus to be very interesting. For those who know the game, their is a focus on how decision making defines who you are, and indeed I found myself wondering at how a game that is so freeform in many ways is still confined to an on-the-rails style of storytelling, via the requests from Atlas. I love that Bioshock was able to confront the player with the fundamental nature of how they have engaged with first person shooter stories in the past through the meeting with Ryan and then go right ahead and finish the story using that same technique. This new awareness in the player of how they play first person shooters is probably what makes the last third of the game so obviously different to what preceded it
HL2 unintrusive storytelling? f**k off. Locked in a room with a bunch of pretentious bottomholes jabbering at each other, waiting for them to let you continue.
Every time I read the comments on the Devil's Advocate articles they always end up being the same thing, people complain that the writer is an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about and that the magazine contradicts something else that it has said somewhere else. Hopefully people will understand these articles one day.
Having said that, this is one of the more believable arguments, and wouldn't be surprised if a fair few people agree with the what the writer says here. Of course it is not to the extreme he suggests. A good game doesn't need a good story, but a good game with a great story will be propelled far higher than one without.
Half Life is a great example of where a story drives the game forward, whilst it is also possible to bypass it completely. Personally, I thought Oblivion had a terrible story, which was made even worse by it forcing you to repeat the same actions in very repetitive areas, so much so that I gave up on the main quest. It is a valid point, however, that it had many stories to tell, but these were mostly constructed by the player themselves, and so is exactly what the writer of this piece is getting at.
Bioshock is a good example of where a good story with real depth fails because of poor gameplay. The final act is a clever twist on our expectations of the game and also is an effective comment on the games industry as a whole. We play the game expecting great freedom in our choices and how we want to play the game but that is stripped away from us as we realise we have been led down this narrow path throughout the game. This is then followed by the typical expectations of the shooter genre, with escorting missions and the typical big boss battle at the end. The problem with this though is the fact that you don't really have much freedom in the early stages of the game and the choices you make are unimportant.
What's more is that the shooting mechanics are not very well executed and so the final act is not very enjoyable to play. So we have a game that didn't suffer because of the story, but because the gameplay wasn't created to match it.
but I could easily go through Halo without a story. Give me a gun and show me the bad guys.
Halo had a story? Is it written on a napkin somewhere in crayon? As much as I enjoyed Halo I'd say it already embodies the point you are trying to make. There is virtually no story there but it's still a lot of fun to play.
A counterexample would be a game like Phoenix Wright, where the thin gameplay exists solely to advance the story. Interestingly, the stories aren't particularly high-minded or extravagant (they don't contain any startling insight into existence or the human condition) but they are still involving enough to keep you playing all the way through.
I don't disagree with the point of the article - to insight a debate on the importance of the story within games, but the choice of examples is extremely poor. Numerous games could have been cited as having weak to no storyline but good and innovative gameplay - Unreal Tournament/Quake 3, Street Fighter II/Soul Caliber, Guitar Hero, Sonic, Super Mario Kart, Wii Sports, Gran Turismo, Civilisation III, Elite etc etc etc...
However because of the poor and biased choice of articles the authors statement comes accross as:
Valve/Steam make available the best games, discuss.
Story doesn't "Define" gameplay...It directs it. Problem is this artical is that if you take away story you take away the point....It'd become every game is the sims....
Picture this...Metal Gear with no story... Your actually able to completely choose what to do...Snake instead moves to LA saying "***K the big shell and metal gear" and becomes a bum...and the rest of your game your beggin' for change??
This reminds me of an interview with David Braben that I read. Apparently with his next game The Outsider, the plot develops based upon the actions the player takes. I don't know how well this will work, but Braben believes that a game reacts to the player, rather than the player reacting to the game would be a true next-generation game.
I can't really agree with too much of this. The Darkness for example was one of my games of 2007. Without the story (spoiler for anyone who hasn't played it) forcing you to watch the execution of your girlfriend the game's narrative would have lacked as much impact. It definitely would have been a worse game had you been able to stop that event. The story hinged on that moment and it provides much of your motivation for the rest of the game. Not to mention being one of the most powerful and shocking scenes I have witnessed in all of my years of gaming.
Theres some truth to this (as there is with all DA articles)
I mean games should make their own mark on entertainment. Alot of the games released today are like interactive stories. A pure game is one where you are free to make your own story or just play. Thats why he chose TF2 and peggle as example folks. Both games don't lead you down any paths, its gaming in its purest sense, just like Pong.
I mean think on recent games you've played, yes there are some elements of gaming, but alot of it is narrative, like books or films. Don't get me wrong, I think games with a good story and characters are brilliant, but the author has a point.
lol poor Alec must be tearing his hair out at these people jumping on him, clearly not realising it is part of a column where inherantly ridiculous ideas are put forward.... Like Ross' one where he said games should only be released in a 2 week period in the Autumn
I think its all a matter of context. I mean, some games don't need a great story to be great fun. After all, who cares what's going on in Ikaruga?! You just shoot and try to survive!!!
On the other hand, an engrossing story can add a lot of weight to a game which may otherwise be a fairly empty experience. The traditional Japanese RPG would be as dull as dishwater had it relied soley on turn-based combat to involve the player. The story is everything in this context.
This articles' point seems confused. End of level bosses aren't necessarily a sign of poor story telling. Again, 2D shooters rarely have any worthwhile story but would be all the worse off without end of level bosses, as they provide a final test of the skills learned so far. The reward for defeating these bosses of course, is progress.
Many modern games have eschewed the traditional boss sections, but it is difficult to imagine how games such as Bioshock could have ended any other way than to confront the games' antagonist head on; predictable though it may be.
Again, is the writer's issue with story-telling or the mechanics of concluding the story? I feel there is a significant difference, because removing the story from all games would put gaming back 20 years as an entertainment medium.
On the other hand, there is much that can be done to improve the integration of the story as a dynamic element of the gaming experience. Where a plot is integral to the game, I certainly believe more can be done to make the player feel like their choices have led directly to a unique conclusion. A lot of developers are getting closer to this however, and I feel its only a matter of time before this process is perfected.
but I could easily go through Halo without a story. Give me a gun and show me the bad guys.
Halo had a story? Is it written on a napkin somewhere in crayon? As much as I enjoyed Halo I'd say it already embodies the point you are trying to make. There is virtually no story there but it's still a lot of fun to play.
A counterexample would be a game like Phoenix Wright, where the thin gameplay exists solely to advance the story. Interestingly, the stories aren't particularly high-minded or extravagant (they don't contain any startling insight into existence or the human condition) but they are still involving enough to keep you playing all the way through.
Spot on. And yes, apparently had a story, enough to make a book series and a possible movie out of. Blah. Doom anyone?
I just wish they'd stop dragging us from one cuscene/in-game event to another, ramming the story down our throats.
Stories are often needed, but not always. One of the games with whose story had me hooked was the old Amiga game "Wings". The story was no more than pages in a diary, a new page turning after each mission.
Besides, most stories are really crap. Sorry to say this Gaming Industry, but most of you really suck at it. It usually feels like a couple of highschool kids who think they've made the next Die Hard movie.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
, KOTOR, all have story as a core element of the game.
) and I stayed to the end just because of the story. I had to see what happened and what was going on with Ethan. Otherwise I would have played for a while but running around in the same place just doing nothing is not really my kind of game.
As much as I enjoyed Halo I'd say it already embodies the point you are trying to make. There is virtually no story there but it's still a lot of fun to play.
