Anyone else resent having storylines in games?

[Girlysprite]

Cutscenes should be kept to a minimum, developers must always watch out that they don't grow lazy. Cutscenes are easy because the player can not escape it in any way. If you put it in interactive mode, there are often ways the player can screw it up which need fixing. But that's no excuse.
Almost worse are cutscenes where I see something happen and think 'now why couldn't I do this? Why couldn't I just play the part that is displayed to me now?' An example is one of the cutscenes right after the tutorial in DMC4. Nero beats up a bunch of demons with really cool moves. Nice cutscene but eh...I would have preferred to fight myself instead of watching him fight.

 

[Fire Daemon]

If you don't have cut scenes then the story can't progress. Although games like Half-life don't have Cut scenes they have in game cut scenes. No cut scenes just means run,gun/stab,run,gun/stab......etc untill the game is beaten.

I like cut scenes, especially if they are in the First Person. Granted that everynow and again cut scenes are badly timmed and take far too long. The best example of this is in hack and slash games. You might be fighting a mob of orks and then the camera moves and shows you some orks walking up on a ledge with bows. Why would anyone want to have the combat interupted to see some people standing on a ledge. Also most of the time in hackey slashy games the cut scenes have horrible acting and usually use the same model as durring gameplay (aka shitty models). As for the Assassins Creed Cut scenes..... well they where fucking stupid. You can't skip any of them, there long, they don't make much sense, don't contribute anything to the storyline and like I said.....are fucking stupid.

 

[brazenhead89]

Got to agree with you about the DMC4 cutscenes, Girlysprite. Another game guilty of this "snatching" is Stranglehold. In one scene, Tequila fires a shotgun at a watermelon, and uses the spilt juices to perform an absolutely ludicrous, greasey body slide across an entire market counter, blasting the shit out of bad guys as he goes.
Sure, there's plenty of shooting in Stranglehold, but taking away my watermelon-sliding antics? For shame.
Interesting responses here, but it seems that about 99% of the people on here actually enjoy having stories in games. Much like being at a mixed social gathering, it appears I'm on my own once again, *sniffle*.

 

[darkfire_faerie]

No. I prefer having storylines in video games, where they're suitible. Obviously games like Guitar Hero or Sports games, and beat-em-ups like Tekken don't need them.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

I do think storylines are very important to almost any game that isn't one of the first of its kind. Super Mario Brothers didn't need a story, because it was one of the first really big mainstream platformers. Guitar Hero and DDA were new kinds of gameplay, they didn't need stories.

But if I'm playing shooter number ten million, the only difference between it and every shooter before it is often story and presentation. I need story to feel like I'm playing a new game.

My fear with this, though, is that as games become more and more like movies, we'll start borrowing more pages from what Hollywood believes makes a good "epic" story. The recent rash of video game trilogies are starting down this road (see Halo 2 and 3). For instance, I can already predict what Mass Effect 2 and 3 major dramatic plot points will involve. Ready?

- Near the end of Mass Effect 2, the Normandy will be destroyed.
- In the final third of Mass Effect 2, Joker will fall, breaking his legs.
- Mass Effect 2 will end with some form of open route for the reapers to come to our galaxy (perhaps the citadel will be activated, but in "standby" mode a la Halo 2), or with the reapers coming to our galaxy. Shepherd will be blamed for it by a major political figure.
- Mass Effect 2 will involve Shepherd's love interest being captured or dying.
- Mass Effect 3 will begin with Shepherd on his own, stripped of his title, putting his crew back together and stealing a clunker of a ship.
- Part way through, he will be given his standing back and told that he is our last hope.
- In the final third of Mass Effect 3, Joker and/or Shepherd's love interest will rejoin the crew.

Or something like that. Don't get me wrong, I hope that none of this happens and that the sequels surprise me. But the pull of the easy Hollywood route is strong, and it's where gaming seems to be headed.

- J

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I love a story well-told. A poorly-told story, not so much.

I used to write for the paper-and-lead games industry, and at the company I worked most for they referred to story and character and the like as "chrome". Not just because it added flashy, shiny appeal to the game, but also because it acted as "corrosion resistance" and kept players from rusting out on the bare mechanics of gameplay. Get them invested in the story (or setting, or character, or something similar) and they'll keep playing... which, of course, means they'll keep being interested in supplements and sequels.

Games Workshop has thrived on the basis of their chrome, and one could argue that Mario and Link and Master Chief and Solid Snake all serve a similar purpose.

(Not that every game has to have a story; Tetris and DDR do fine without one.)

-- Steve

 

[LisaB1138]

I do not resent a game having a story; I resent poor storytelling in games.

 

[Asymptote Angel]

Wow, no one's mentioned BioShock yet. Consider how story is handled there (and in SS2 as well). Any and all plot-related events and information are presented to you by other characters without taking you out of the action. Even when you're taking that fateful bathysphere ride down into Rapture, the camera doesn't pull out to display the city's majesty; your view is restricted to that of the character. Even for the 45 seconds or so in Ryan's office where you don't have control of your character, it remains in the first-person perspective and you remain spellbound by the events taking place onscreen because you know that your character is responsible for them.

This is, in my opinion, the most intelligent way for games to tell a story. Since BioShock's main character was SUPPOSED to have no identity, his reactions are your reactions, just not shown in the game. Even for the 45 seconds when you don't have control, neither does Jack--the things he does are forced upon him without his choice in the matter, and the same applies to you.

If every game could do this effectively, story in games would be much better for it. I miss the days of the silent protagonist (because the silent protagonist is YOU more than any other character could ever be), backed up by a cast of characters that brought the world to life (I'm thinking Captain Price, HK-47, even Tanya from C&C: Red Alert).

 

[Possum-Man]

In answer to the main question: No.

I could never get tired of story-lines in games, unless the cut scenes are un-skippable. If a game has a strong story behind it then it's good. If a game doesn't bother with a story but reels you in with fun and intuitive game-play then it's still good. The story adds another dimension to the gameplay, it means that you do things in the game either because you're compelled to or because you're forced into it. Poor story-lines damage a game, average story-lines don't affect it and great story-lines enhance the game. Heck, Space Invaders kinda' had a story: There are aliens trying to invade Earth and you have to defend it. There, it's simple and effective. If a game doesn't have a story then it'd better have great game-play.

P.M.

 

[ilves7]

I think some type of story is essential in a game. Although that does depend on what type of game, certain game types require waaaay less story than others (like doom vs KOTOR). I don't think the issue most people have is with having a story, but rather how it is implemented in the game. Lenghty cut-scenes can get really annoying, but the half-life or bioshock style of story is very non-intrusive to the gameplay itself. You never lose control of the character and things happen around you. In bioshock you could, or not, depending on your preferences, listen to the recordings scatters around the levels. It would give you more insight or you could just go through blasting everything to hell.

Anyway, to me it sounded like brazenhead was complaining more about obtrusive cut-scenes and pauses in an effort to tell the story rather than stories themselves. Games just need to learn to do a better job at telling them.

 

[Stone Cold Monkey]

You want good example skippible story look at the books of material included with the Diablo and Warcraft/Starcraft games. I alway comments on that company putting way more information about the game than any player wanted to know. They also had the good sense to make all of that information completely irrelevant to a player that just wanted to smash monsters and take their treasure.

Personally, Bioshock and to a lesser extent Fallout 2 (Best RPG ever) handles the story in manner best for video games keeping the player in control the player at all times. I still remember in Fallout 2 approaching a super mutant who every other game at that time who have me hear him out before starting the battle. In Fallout 2, however, I was free to shoot him in the eye with my sniper rifle before he finished his first sentence.

 

[Dalisclock]

I would rather have a story then not, but it all depends on the game and how well it's pulled off.

I enjoyed Serious Sam immensely, which had next to no story, but the gameplay mechanics just worked wonderfully so that the lack of story was not a problem. If a game has a wonderful story, I may tolerate a lot to find out how it ends. For example, Final Fantasy Tactics had a very deep story, particulary for that type of game, which gave me the incentive to work past some of the incredibly difficult battles.

I can only think of one game where it felt like the story overwhelmed the gameplay, and that would be the old PS1 game "Xenogears", particularly since when the game reached the 2nd disc, the gameplay pretty much gave way to long story dumps.

 

[Benny Blanco]

I suppose it very much depends on the quality of the story and the extent to which one is railroaded into the story.

I was a fan of tabletop RPGs back in the 90's, and although I loved Baldur's Gate and pretty much any decently thought through RPG, my main gripe was how the story forces you to follow certain paths. Some are almost vital (finding out what's wrong with the iron in BG1) but other games (NWN, I'm looking at you!) force you down a restrictive path with some predictable and hokey plotlines.

Also, Tetris never needed a story...

Essentially my point is that it functions like a condiment- it can make something bland and stodgy into something spicy and delicious, or ruin the tastiest dish. Some dishes, of course, need more condiments than others.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Essentially my point is that it functions like a condiment- it can make something bland and stodgy into something spicy and delicious, or ruin the tastiest dish. Some dishes, of course, need more condiments than others.

I hate plain hamburgers.

 

[SilentScope001]

I love storylines. Otherwise, why in the world would you actually play? Sometimes, a story can add fun to a game, provide a motivation to continue. You don't need it for some gernes, for other gernes, it is ESSENTIAL.

Just tell the storyline well and keep 'interactivity'. No cutscenes could be a nice start. Also providing us with the illusion of choice and allowing us to influence the story, turning the story into a part of the gameplay.

 

[Jindrak]

No.

Storylines are the only reason I buy games.
Occasionally multiplayer makes a play for my attention too. Occasionally.