Story in games,thoughts.

I think that purpose is the only reason a story is used in games right now. It could be used in other ways I suppose, but it's quite difficult to blend it with engaging gameplay at the same time.
HL has atmosphere and great pacing, not a great story. In the end the plot could be anything, the presentation is what drives the game forward. The same story with non interactive cutsceens would be IMO very uninteresting.
Besides, purpose in a game is not a bad thing, if the player wants to acomplish it. It is however very difficult to force the player to care about the given purpose. In Heavenly Sword for example, most of my friends skipped the cutsceens whenever they could. They wanted to kick some ass, not to watch an animated drama. On HL though, it's in your face, you have to pay attention.

As you said, games require a beginning a middle and an end. A predetermined path that unlike film or book you take active part in. It is very difficult to make someone care when he knows he can reach the end whether he is paying attention to the plot or not. Perhaps if his actions had severe consequences he would be more interested.

 

My view on stories: if you want an extensive story, read books instead of playing games.

 

fixed..

 

Oh the pains of semantics... doesn't "my view" suffice to point that out?

Off topic: seriously, people read too few books nowadays. You lazy bunch.

 

That's a bit of a grave over-generalisation.. I do read alot of books i'll have you know..

However i've never so far been able to stay engrossed in a book for 15-40 hours like I have a video game (they just don't write em that long)..

 

Well, a mixture of both. It's fairly easy to come up with the definition of "good graphics" or "amazing sound effects" although it's hard to capture "decent gameplay" or "engaging story". You know one when you see one, but designing a good story or incredible gameplay which is not a mixture of existing elements isn't that easy. We can analyze story easily, but it's tough to synthesize one that is decent. It's like a question: how to write a good book? It's even harder with game since it has to be interactive. Well, at least it should.

We know what makes good realistic graphics and developers can easily create a feature list of stuff to put in the engine. Sure, laundry list like that won't ensure great graphics, but at least you know what you're aiming for. In case of story it's really hard to create bullet points. And even if you have a bunch of great story points, you come back to the problem Shifty Geezer was writing about: game - movie - game - movie approach, which is not the ultimate gaming experience.

So the problem is how to create engaging environment which is stable enough not to fall appart due to player's choices, yet it's interactive enough for player to create his own story, his own kind of experience. Currently we're in even deeper problem as there isn't much left for player's imagination.

There was in interesting talk by Will Wright where he pointed out, that a lot of relations never made it into SimCity because of hardware constraints. A lot was left to the player's imagination. With the push towards realistic graphics developers (mainly western developers) put themselves in a bad position when it comes to interactivity and storytelling.

And yeah, sure there are games out there with great predefined stories. But the problem is: they are predefined (yes Zelda, I'm looking at you). Sure I can play game which is a neverending lineup of minigames which lead to another chunk of story being told. But from gamer's perspective it's not a storytelling, it's a storylistening.

 

How is this a problem?

That's what, in itself defines a "story" in the context of video game narrative..

I'm not a big fan of this notion that somehow, if you strip out as much narrative as possible and give the player a setting, a themed world & characters & a set of play mechanics, so how the player can provide himself with a greater sense of "plot" & storytelling than a professional writer paid to carry out the task..

In my view if your going to create a story driven game, don't create a story driven game.. create a story-game by using the themes/plot and narrative to "define" the game in itself.. This must be fixed and well defined in order to artistically control the experience you're providing and make sure that the user enjoys the richness of a well-fleshed out & engaging narrative..
If you don't want to do this, then why bother with a story at all? just make a Mario game or Crackdown..

 

Heh, the hard part I find with books is finding authors I like then the issue of finishing their entire life's works in a few weeks if I end up liking all their work (since there is a bunch out there I end up only liking a single book of).

But really I often play games because I want an engaging story that I feel I'm actually a part of not just an observer. Other times I play games because I want something to challenge me or to be able to work together with other players. It varies though depending on my own mood but more often not I'm looking for a game with a story that grabs me up and I feel I'm actually in (probably because those types of games in the past leave the best impressions on me and unfortunately are hard to find so you value them even more).

 

Predefined story is what defines books and movies. It's also what defines most of games today. But that's not what should in my opinion define games of the future. And I'm not alone in that opinion.

But again: this is "consume our story" approach which at some levels violates the whole idea of game being interactive. Is it bad approach? No it isn't. It's perfectly fine in terms of decent gaming experience. But that's not the premise of this thread. This is not interactive storytelling.

 

I think this is where you and I disagree..

I see this as the future of gaming more than anything else..

Ultimately we'd end up with games being huge, immeasurably immersive & involving experiences where you jump into a pre-defined world & take on the role of an arbitrary character.. You play how you like, explore and experience the world from as many different mechanisms defined however ultimately your overall purpose is to play a part in the overall plot of the game..

There's a difference between telling a story in a very linear (cutscene-> gameplay->cutscene->gameplay) constrained fashion, & telling that same story through perspective which could change depending on how the player chooses to participate within the world.. In this case you'd be fundamentally telling a story through sound, vision and the impression of a living breathing world with doesn't sit and wait for you (i.e. scripted events) to "be" but is much more emergent in propagating an overarching narrative through the intricate dynamic interactions of what could only be described as digital fate/destiny..

This my theory anyways & a bit too long-winded to elaborate fully in a single thread not dedicated to it..

Yes it is.. Just not in the same way..

I think you might do well to understand that storytelling can be done in a variety of different ways and even though the fundamental events which dictate the major areas of the narrative are fixed, the path through which the player experiences these isn't.. This is still storytelling..

I'll try to give an example.. You could have a game where the plot is fixed and the story is told through constant events where the player is ripped out of the immersion and scripted events dictate the actions which take place in the world following (not so good..) or you could have the same event which plays out while the player is still in control, still immersed in the experience & the events which unfold do so wthin the world, in and around the player as he plays.. The measure in which he can affect the course of these events can also vary but IMHO too much can break the believability of the world..

I'm a firm believer that the day video games truely evolve in terms of story telling, will be the day we stop positioning the player as the "protagonist" and some kind of hero-saviour figure who's actions dictate the overall flow of the game..

I'd like to see games which cast the player as a supporting character for example.. Games which allow you to play the role of different characters whose contributions to the directions of the fate of the world vary from one to the next.. In all cases each party would have their own individual "purpose" which would play only a small part in the overall picture & this may or may not affect certain ket events which take place..

Let's have more lead characters who are "human".. Inadaquate fathers, a child from a broken home, a coward, a drunk.. I really want to see more characters which really kick the human aspect of the plot up a notch & provides the player with another dimension to the overall plot of the game which adds more value to the characters (and the relationships between them) than we currently see..

(Sorry for the long rant.. )

 

I always thought games benefitted more from "Scenario" than "Story"

 

Ok, so let me paint some graphs. Linear story (most current games):

Code:

(*)---(*)---(*)---(*)---(*)

Quasi-linear story (your idea of sandbox):

Code:

           /X           X----X
   /X----X/  \         /    / \
(*)--X--------X--(*)--X----X--X--(*)
      \   -X-/         \  /      /
       X-/              X-------/

Non-linear game:

Code:

       X-----\   X
   X--/ \     \ / \
  /     _X-----X_  \
  X----X      /  \  \
   \    "X---X----X--X
    \   /   /
     X-/---/

The most important thing I'd like to point out is that none of the approaches is better than others. They are just different.

So in case of linear and quasi-linear stories you have a set of must-have events (*) pivotal to the story. In most cases this would be a predefined, prerendered scene (or an game engine based movie). In the approach prefered by you, you have a bunch of choices in between those key scenes. Yes, it's a great type of gameplay, but that's not necessarily the most "advanced" player-driver storytelling. First of all if we want to go all-interactive, this kind of story puts several constraints on the player. You have a predefined start, one or several predefined endings and actions you have to perform in order to push the story forward. This is not a completely interactive experience and not the type of storytelling which I used to stress during my pen-and-paper RPGs days.

Yes, this can be immersive, yes this can be fun. But that's not completely player-centric. I'm not arguing what you should like something else, I'm just saying that there's some more story-creation that can get squeezed into the game. I mean: games can be even more interactive than that. Games can put more storytelling opportunities in players' hands than that.

Sure it is! I'm not trying to assess the value of one story type or another. I'm far from that. I'm just saying that we can shift a lot of responsibilities to the player and it may work. Do I have examples of such games? Not really. I have never said it's an easy task to achieve this kind of storytelling.

I'd like to see many different types of story-driven games. One thing I haven't seen is a game telling a story several times from the eyes of different characters. It would be even better to have slightly different gameplay mechanics for each of them. That's really difficult to achieve if you want to maintain several story threads related to each of the characters, make them interact with each other and be consistent (e.g. you play 1/3 of the game as Jim, then the "same" 1/3 of the game as Sarah seeing how the world evolved when you played as Jim yet having certain degree of influence on what's the end-game shape; and then add another character and keep it consistent with what previous characters did yet allow player to co-create the story; and then do the same with second 1/3 of the game, and so on). This is something Call of Juarez tried to do to some extent, but failed.

I know it sounds lame, but I'm responding to your post as I read it. And it seems you want pretty much the same thing I desribed in the previous section. Twisted.


But back to the original thought. Sure I want many different thing and sure this is all good storytelling. But it's more of a story than telling. I just want to get my hands on a game where you tell your story. Perhaps Mass Effect will be close, I don't know. We've had a lot of games where the story was completely linear and some in between the corner cases. I just want an "inteligent" game where player is the only author of the story.

 

I hear that all the time & I don't buy it..

In the most literal sense, if the player is the only author of the story then the game breaks down due to an overall lack of "purpose"..

What are you supposed to do if you can do anything?

How are you supposed to be if you can be anyone?

What can there be to suprise you, to compel you, to captivate your imagination if your not dealing with anything other than that which comes out of your own mind?

Many people have little imagination & play games to enjoy the story+gameplay experience as an inspiring work someone else's (incredibly talented & incredibly vivid) imagination dream't up.. are you saying it would be better if they left all of that up to the player according to some arbitrary assumption that they can do a better job?

You only have to look at games like SimCity Societies to see what a "true" sandbox game actually is.. There is no plot, no purpose, no function of progress within the game and you, the player basically do whatever you like with whats available.. Pretty much all of the reviews of the game justify my notion that this setup really doesn't work since a player can't create a challenge (i.e. beating the game) for himself that would provide any reasonable sense of reward or accomplishment..

Even if you look at some of the most accomplished (focused) sandbox games (GTA series, Crackdown..) they rely heavily on mechanisms to provide a sense of purpose which provide the context within which the player can make his own fun.. All games need these rules because it's through these rules that gamers can truely enjoy the rewarding experience of challenge, progression and the fulfillment of purpose.. For all of the freedom GTA III offered for example, the game actually had one of the most enjoyable and rewarding plots which was driven predominantly by adding context to action you could have otherwise done alone (an assasination mission.. a driving mission etc..) in the world, and only minimally by cut-scenes which served more as a platform for refreshing humourous outakes than real key events..

 

The closest game I can think of would be Kingdom Under Fire: Crusaders/Heroes. They have multiple characters and they all tie in to the same story. However, the story telling is linear. You can't lose a mission on purpose and give the leg up for the other character dynamically. You could choose different missions and you'd have to follow through with that choice, and sometimes the events you play overlap between characters.

It's been awhile since I've played it, but I do recall one mission where you were on the "good" side and I eventually won. And then when I played as another character, I fought in that same battle but my army was meant to lose according to the story-script i.e. I had to flee the battle.

 

But surely if it wasn't constrained in such a way then the game would lose that major event (i.e. good guys win the battle..)

It seems to me that the more player-control you put into the course of the direction of the game, the less impact/significance any major plot mechanism has.. It could be experienced from a lesser perspective or missed altogether and one would have to consider how this would affect the "purpose" of the rest of the game..

Dead Rising kind of did something to avoid ths by having the game carry it's main plot on the back of several key events which you could follow as you desire.. However if you deviated to far then you lost the progression of the plot altogether and was left with the pure sandbox experience of being in the mall surrounded by zombies with no particular function or immediate activity expected of you to perform.. The player would quickly get bored and load up from the last check point to continue on with the main plot..

Playing a game with no narrative or sense of progression is like playing chess against yourself..

 

But I'm not selling anything. I just want different experience than you.

Do Sims lack purpose?

What do you do in life?

Who are you in life?

Life puts you in an environment where you can be whoever you want. At the same time life limits you. You're male (I guess...) so you can't give birth. You... well, I don't know you and there's no point in trying to guess your limitations. But there's a bunch of events that affect your life and allow you to make your own decisions. By the time you die you can tell the story of a taxi driver or a CEO of a company - it's up to you. Obviously games should put more constraints on the player. You're on the tropical island. You can discover a treasure, mate with gorillas or kill some bad guys. You can probably do a bunch of diffenent things I can't imagine right now. I believe this kind of game could be fun. If done right. Which is a requirement for each and every game.

I read a lot of good stuff about Dwarf Fortress but I didn't have time yet to try it myself. People tell amazing stories based on their gameplay experience. A lot can happen in a sandbox game. Yes, you can argue that 1000 predefined events is no better than 10 predefined events, but if those 1000 are in 100% an effect of my interaction with the environment and are not set by the designer, that's way more telling than the story. An extreme storytelling game is one for which you will have 10 walkthroughs and each of them will tell you a different story.

There is a time when I doubt in my English. How many times did I write that I don't think people should like what I like? How many times did I write that I'm not puting grades next to each story type? Quite a few.

These games were never designed with story in mind. Great you didn't call Warcraft a true sandbox game.

Which doesn't mean it cannot be achieved. Many things were beyond gamers' imaginations yet made it into the games. That's why creating games is so cool.

 

For sure, and I was alright with that. I was more impressed with the level of story-telling to account for that sequence. So much is revealed from each character's point of view. It was wasn't just good versus evil, and you really got to know events from each character's point of view.

There is actually a game that has you playing two sides, and you can play the same map with two different outcomes. Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. But of course, the story is all set by having you win the missions and it ends up being two linear stories rather than something dynamic. And you're right, it is like playing chess by yourself (how appropriate considering Warcraft II ).

 

I don't think the question is how such a game like ConayR is describing can be achieved. The question is how will the average gamer be interested in playing it... Truth be told, I never liked sandbox games like GTA or the sims, with the exemption of the TES series.
Besides this is taking us away, I think, from the story element of games and more to a simulation.

 

This thread is about story in games.

There are two types of games, those with good game play dynamics and those that are story based. Of course there are many games that fall in between the shades of gray.

You can't really say that pac-man has a great story or that a game like Monkey Island has anything but story.

To your questions "What do you do in real life?", "Who are you in real life?", these seem to be based on the idea that you somehow think that a game mirrors life and vice versa.

A game is a game. A game is there to engage our mind (or disengage it in some instances). A game is supposed to take us to a far away place and engage us into the out of the ordinary. Some us play them to escape, others play it to compete. At the end of the day it's a game, so who you are in real life has naught to do with how you are in a game and nor should it. Only ruin lies on in that realm.

 

Games mirror life whether I like it or not. But that wasn't my point. My point was that it is possible to create extremely open world and keep player focused on the game at the same time. And once again I have to add something obvious: I don't claim to have a formula for the best gaming experience ever. It won't fit tastes of many gamers just like recent FPSes don't fit my taste. I'm just trying to point out that there are unexplored territories in storytelling which can and should be discovered.