Does anyone else find "plot twists" in games gimmicky?

Recommended Videos

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
Reading over this forum as well as gaming reviews in general, I've observed a lot of references to "plot twists"--it's become a cliche, for instance, for industry commentators to discuss how "great" or "unexpected" this or that plot twist is; the implication being that unexpected curves in the arc of a storyline somehow have the potential to greatly enhance a gaming experience.

Sometimes, the use of suspenseful narrative structures seems to have supplanted the necessity of supplying a well-developed story, or--in extreme cases--of actually creating a game. I'm thinking of Heavy Rain: the gameplay was mediocre, the environments were uninspiring, and the storyline was... thoroughly mediocre. Yet people still raved it, particular its conclusory "plot twist"--a twist so anodyne it could've been culled from any potboiler novel.

My question, though, is: isn't this kind of a cheap way to tell a story? It's pretty well-established, in literature, that narrative corkscrews are an overtly commercial device--the Ancient Greeks, for instance, insisted that their tragedians retell well-known mythic stories for the partly the reason that it was felt that the drama would've been cheapened if they tried to hold the audience's attention by constantly upending the plot. Moreover, plot twists may not actually enhance your viewing experience: a recent study I read in Huffington Post suggests that film viewers relax and enjoy movies more when they're not awaiting the next twist in the narrative.

It's kind of funny--people bash a company like Nintendo for supposedly "reusing" the same plots over and over, when the reality is that 1) this strategy has a lot of antecedents in literature and mythology, and 2) it's a far more nuanced way of telling a story than to create a dark, 'edgy' narrative rife with mediocre dialogue and predicated on tawdry narrative twists to keep the audience involved. No one's going to confuse Mario for a narrative-driven game, but take Majora's Mask... the narrative is way beyond something like Heavy Rain in terms of nuance and sophistication.

Also, for fun:

A deus ex machina (pron.: /ˈdeɪ.əs ɛks ˈmɑːkiːnə/ or /ˈdiːəs ɛks ˈmækɨnə/;[1] Latin: "god from the machine" pronounced [ˈdeus eks ˈmaː.kʰi.na]; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. Depending on how it's done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring a happy ending into the tale, or as a comedic device.

...So yeah, the Greeks were so insistent about this they largely forwent writing actually original plot, though that didn't stop Euripides from shoehorning in a bunch of mini-twists in his work (arguably what makes him worse than Aeschylus and Sophocles, whose plots develop more organically).

BAD "plot twist": Heavy Rain's stupid "whodunit" BS; BioShock's bizarre narrative hijinks, KOTOR's brainwashing deus ex machina.

GOOD "plot twist": Aeris' death in FF7--it actually wasn't a "twist" since there was really no counteracting logic whatsoever--Deus Ex's slow-boiling conspiracy
 

IllumInaTIma

Flesh is but a garment!
Feb 6, 2012
1,335
0
0
Plot twist is just a tool, and in right hands it may very much enhance the experience. Good twist is the one that doesn't feel forced and that makes sense once you discover it. Prime example: First Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line. I didn't see it coming, and they sure did blow my mind.
 

CannibalCorpses

New member
Aug 21, 2011
987
0
0
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
 

EzraPound

New member
Jan 26, 2008
1,763
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
I think stories play a valuable role in games, but 1) they should be wedded to gameplay, not a replacement for it, and 2) they shouldn't rely on cheap narrative maneuvers and/or other gimmicky conceits.

IllumInaTIma said:
Plot twist is just a tool, and in right hands it may very much enhance the experience. Good twist is the one that doesn't feel forced and that makes sense once you discover it. Prime example: First Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line. I didn't see it coming, and they sure did blow my mind.
I actually didn't like BioShock's narrative--I thought it was tacky to make you listen to a giant segmented audio book, and that the plot twist was hokey. Also, it was just a pared down version of System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gameplay-wise, but that's a whole other post...
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Plot twists must be done well and right. A plot twist that seems forced comes across as pretentious and convoluted, breaking the immersion. If it's obvious, it's not a twist. If it comes out of nowhere, it's an ass pull. It's a fine line for a good twist, but there's some room to maneuver.

The best kind of plost twist, I think, is the one you're kind of sort of expecting, but when it comes, it still sweeps you off your feet. Arguably, the only better twist is when you're obviously expecting one, but it never comes, so the writer pulled a twist on you by not pulling a twist on you.

CannibalCorpses said:
Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
What? You mean I have been playing my games wrong for over two decades? Egads, the epiphany! I better put my helmet on lest the walls get splattered with my brain matter!
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
I think in games, just like any other media, it all depends on how they're used. They're just one of many storytelling devices that the writers can use and like any of those devices, they can be used to good effect or they can be abused.

What you're describing is basically M Night Shyamalan syndrome, where the twists are either rendered impotent or take over the entire story because the audience has been conditioned to expect them. In situations like that I agree they're nothing more than a gimmick. But just because there are some movies that reduce plot twists to gimmicks doesn't mean that all movies should stop using them. The plot twist made Fight Club pretty awesome, for example.

Back onto gaming, there are examples where it's been done really well, there are examples where it's been done really badly, there are meh examples, and everybody's mileage on them varies. I was pretty meh about the plot twist in Knights of the Old Republic, for example, but I know a lot of other people that think it was awesome.

My point is when a twist is done well it's a very effective device and can be a lot of fun too. Twists aren't gimmicky by default - they only become that way when the writers do them badly or overuse them.
 

CannibalCorpses

New member
Aug 21, 2011
987
0
0
Vegosiux said:
CannibalCorpses said:
Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
What? You mean I have been playing my games wrong for over two decades? Egads, the epiphany! I better put my helmet on lest the walls get splattered with my brain matter!
If you've been playing games for over 2 decades then you know that games didn't really bother with stories back in the day, it was all out gameplay with barely anything else. You might also have noticed that since stories have become more prevalent in games, the difficulty has also dropped to such a point that any fool can finish 90% of games without really having any problems. I know there are more reasons to the decline in difficulty than just story but i do think it factors into it at some level.

When i started gaming it was an intro screen and an ending screen and sometimes a screen or 2 inbetween and the rest was pure gameplay. The story wasn't irrelevant because it wasn't even present. You had a game title to go on and that was it. That was the gaming industry that i joined and helped to make popular when barely anyone was interested in gaming at all. Jump forward 25 years and we are discussing plot twists and storyline like they even remotely add anything to the gameplay, the core element of gaming. All we need now is some comments on graphics and we are basically talking about interactive movies rather than games.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
If used well it can be entertaining, same with anything else really.

CannibalCorpses said:
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
No.
Just no.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
If you've been playing games for over 2 decades then you know that games didn't really bother with stories back in the day it was all out gameplay with barely anything else.
Chrono Trigger, 1995
Terranigma, 1995
Lufia, 1993
The Tales series, starting with Phantasia in 1995
Secret of Mana, 1993
Hell, I even played Sailor Moon: Another Story, 1995

So what if all of the are JRPGs? Games that told a story existed back then.

Now, this is as far as I can remember, I did play games earlier than that, but memories of those times are blurry.

But I stand corrected, it's not over two decades, it's only slightly under two decades to two decades...and it's already a decade and a half since the first Baldur's Gate rolled around.

You might also have noticed that since stories have become more prevalent in games, the difficulty has also dropped to such a point that any fool can finish 90% of games without really having any problems.
Back in mah days, we had to walk uphill in the blizzard to school. Both ways. And we liked it that way! People should shed blood, tears and sweat to be worthy of finishing a game!

Yeah, sorry, no, I don't subscribe to that sentiment. I'm confident enough about my own accomplishments that I don't need exclusivity to boost my ego. Gaming is primarily entertainment. Entertainment is supposed to un-frustrate people. Turn it like you will, but "competitive gaming" isn't some kind of an awesome club for cool people only who hold the authority over how games are allegedly "supposed" to be played. There's a trope for that, actually. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys]

I know there are more reasons to the decline in difficulty than just story but i do think it factors into it at some level.
It might.

When i started gaming it was an intro screen and an ending screen and sometimes a screen or 2 inbetween and the rest was pure gameplay. The story wasn't irrelevant because it wasn't even present. You had a game title to go on and that was it. That was the gaming industry that i joined and helped to make popular when barely anyone was interested in gaming at all.
Interesting, as stated above, my experience was somewhat different...

Jump forward 25 years and we are discussing plot twists and storyline like they even remotely add anything to the gameplay, the core element of gaming.


All we need now is some comments on graphics and we are basically talking about interactive movies rather than games.
Those debates about graphics are rather obnoxious and often totally miss the point, because visuals are more than raw rendering power and polygon count, which so many people seem to forget.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
SpunkeyMonkey said:
Plot twists are just a tool, how they are used is what matters.
Exactly. A surprising twist might not save a bad story, but why wouldn't I want them in stories in general? I actually like not knowing how a story will end, I actually like, well, being surprised now and then.


CannibalCorpses said:
Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
What? You mean I have been playing my games wrong for over two decades? Egads, the epiphany! I better put my helmet on lest the walls get splattered with my brain matter!
Got one helmet to spare? I might need one too.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
hazabaza1 said:
If used well it can be entertaining, same with anything else really.

CannibalCorpses said:
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
No.
Just no.
Wow, thanks for the input...i really appreciate how well you put across your argument. Maybe if your games had more substance than story then your comments might aswell ;)
Alright fine I'll elaborate.

I'm not saying that games shouldn't focus on the gameplay and there's certainly a place in modern games for experiences that disregard story altogether and focus on the gameplay (Serious Sam, RoTT, most RTS games, and even stuff like Dota, which I'm a big fan of) but saying that games should just disregard story and focus solely on what makes gaming a unique experience seems, well, ignorant and in some cases idiotic.

Take film for instance. If we took your view, and said that we should only make films based around what makes films different from books or audio, we'd have no focus on anything but making it look pretty and "engaging". And what happens when we do that?


OH DEAR

We don't need a total disregard of story in games, and nor do we need a total disregard of gameplay. What we need is balance. We need a balance of the aspects within games, as well as a balance in the amount of games with an individual focus. Otherwise, things are going to get real stale, real quick.
For every Serious Sam, we need a TellTale's Walking Dead. For every Street Fighter a good JRPG of some sort.
And then there's games like the Bioshock series, or (for lack of a better example that I can think of) a modern Tomb Raider. Games which manage to mix story and gameplay with significant importance.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
Thats highly subjective. I play a lot of games and love it more than movies or books. I want to be entertainet and how a game does it is not so important to me. I love some games for the gameplay and some for the storys and some for both.

If a game challenges my skills is utterly unimportant to me, mainly because I think the pushing of a few buttons can never be any kind of "real" challenge at all.
If I want to be challenged I go to the gym and spar with my training partners or enter a fighting contest.


OT: I think plot twist are just a story telling tool, they do not make or brake a story. If a story is crappy or badly told no amount of mind blowing revelations inside the story will save it, since it failed to make me care in the first place.
On the other Hand they can enhance a story or even be the central most important plot point. In the case of Spec Ops: The Line for instance, that was the case. In my opinion at least. Without its plot twist I would surely have judged it quite differently than I do now.
 

CannibalCorpses

New member
Aug 21, 2011
987
0
0
Vegosiux said:
CannibalCorpses said:
If you've been playing games for over 2 decades then you know that games didn't really bother with stories back in the day it was all out gameplay with barely anything else.
Chrono Trigger, 1995
Terranigma, 1995
Lufia, 1993
The Tales series, starting with Phantasia in 1995
Secret of Mana, 1993
Hell, I even played Sailor Moon: Another Story, 1995

So what if all of the are JRPGs? Games that told a story existed back then.

Now, this is as far as I can remember, I did play games earlier than that, but memories of those times are blurry.

But I stand corrected, it's not over two decades, it's only slightly under two decades to two decades...and it's already a decade and a half since the first Baldur's Gate rolled around.

You might also have noticed that since stories have become more prevalent in games, the difficulty has also dropped to such a point that any fool can finish 90% of games without really having any problems.
Back in mah days, we had to walk uphill in the blizzard to school. Both ways. And we liked it that way! People should shed blood, tears and sweat to be worthy of finishing a game!

Yeah, sorry, no, I don't subscribe to that sentiment. I'm confident enough about my own accomplishments that I don't need exclusivity to boost my ego. Gaming is primarily entertainment. Entertainment is supposed to un-frustrate people. Turn it like you will, but "competitive gaming" isn't some kind of an awesome club for cool people only who hold the authority over how games are allegedly "supposed" to be played. There's a trope for that, actually. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys]

I know there are more reasons to the decline in difficulty than just story but i do think it factors into it at some level.
It might.

When i started gaming it was an intro screen and an ending screen and sometimes a screen or 2 inbetween and the rest was pure gameplay. The story wasn't irrelevant because it wasn't even present. You had a game title to go on and that was it. That was the gaming industry that i joined and helped to make popular when barely anyone was interested in gaming at all.
Interesting, as stated above, my experience was somewhat different...

Jump forward 25 years and we are discussing plot twists and storyline like they even remotely add anything to the gameplay, the core element of gaming.


All we need now is some comments on graphics and we are basically talking about interactive movies rather than games.
Those debates about graphics are rather obnoxious and often totally miss the point, because visuals are more than raw rendering power and polygon count, which so many people seem to forget.
I'm talking Spectrum ZX81 and Commodore 64 era of gaming. Sure, there are examples of story in some games but it really wasn't anything but an explanation of why you were running to the other end of the screen or shooting/eating/absorbing strange shapes on your way there. Thinking about it, the game and the story were the same thing...they weren't seperate like they are now.

Nowadays you have some gameplay and the cut scenes are there so your character can do things the developers couldn't allow you to do in normal gameplay, but needs to be done so the story works. So you will have first person shooters where in the cut scenes you beat the bad guy up with your fists, even though you cannot punch/kick or even melee normally. You will be playing a third person action game with sword attacks and no shooting but in the cut scene your character will pick up a gun to finish of the guy you just chopped up until his health drops. Worse yet though you get games where your character has to do some crazy dodging jumping wild attack and that ends up being reduced to a quick time event that bears no resemblance to the gameplay before it...just to force the story to work. The story came first and then the gameplay was cobbled together to make it interactive enough to be classified as a game.

I'm not going to bother giving you examples because almost every game ive played in the last 5 years has story points that defy the gameplay abilities of your character. Even if you won't admit it to me you will have seen them over and over again and now i've mentioned it you might notice it more.

But i suppose my main core argument in this:

If you remove all the story from a game, what are you left with? A game
If you remove all gameplay from a game, what are you left with? A story

This is why story is as nothing to me in a game. The game ceases to be such when the gameplay is removed but without a story it remains a game. Thus, the story is irrelevant to my hardcore aspect of gaming and actually gets in my way of enjoying most games.

PS I'm going to ignore your comments on competitive gaming because you have no idea what i am and missed the reality by a fucking million miles. If you spent more time trying to understand where i am coming from rather than trying to slot me into some easilly mockable sterotype then you might actually learn something but alas, your 20 years of gaming must have started the moment your exited the womb ;p

OT i guess with some thought i've come to the conclusion that it's not plot twists that are gimmicky but the whole process of adding gameplay to a story. Thats not to say that all games are created story first but the ones that are seem cheaper to me for that. I can still find gameplay that interests me and if i have to skip 3 hours of cut scenes to play it without interruption then it's no hardship really.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
I'm talking Spectrum ZX81 and Commodore 64 era of gaming. Sure, there are examples of story in some games but it really wasn't anything but an explanation of why you were running to the other end of the screen or shooting/eating/absorbing strange shapes on your way there. Thinking about it, the game and the story were the same thing...they weren't seperate like they are now.
Glad we reached an agreement on the fact that even back then, games were not gameplay and gameplay only.

Nowadays you have some gameplay and the cut scenes are there so your character can do things the developers couldn't allow you to do in normal gameplay, but needs to be done so the story works. So you will have first person shooters where in the cut scenes you beat the bad guy up with your fists, even though you cannot punch/kick or even melee normally. You will be playing a third person action game with sword attacks and no shooting but in the cut scene your character will pick up a gun to finish of the guy you just chopped up until his health drops. Worse yet though you get games where your character has to do some crazy dodging jumping wild attack and that ends up being reduced to a quick time event that bears no resemblance to the gameplay before it...just to force the story to work. The story came first and then the gameplay was cobbled together to make it interactive enough to be classified as a game.

I'm not going to bother giving you examples because almost every game ive played in the last 5 years has story points that defy the gameplay abilities of your character. Even if you won't admit it to me you will have seen them over and over again and now i've mentioned it you might notice it more.
Yes, cutscene incompetence and cutscene power to the max exist. However, your argument is that story in no way adds anything to the value of the game's experience, and you've stated that as if it was a fact. In other words, what you say here has nothing to do with what you said earlier.

Oh and by the way, funnily enough, later in this post you get all "do not presume to know me" on me; what's with that comment about how I won't admit what and what I'll have seen and noticed and the incredibly arrogant assumption that just because you said something to me, I'll suddenly view the world from a different perspective?

But i suppose my main core argument in this:

If you remove all the story from a game, what are you left with? A game
The exact, identical, same game, that offers the same experience as before? Because, if the experience changes, then the story, like it or not, has added something to the game.

If you remove all gameplay from a game, what are you left with? A story
Again, it will not be the exact, identical same story that offers the same experience as before.


This is why story is as nothing to me in a game. The game ceases to be such when the gameplay is removed but without a story it remains a game. Thus, the story is irrelevant to my hardcore aspect of gaming and actually gets in my way of enjoying most games.
Well I'm sorry to hear that your enjoyment is reduced that way. But it still comes across as incredibly presumptios and arrogant to say "your" way is the "right" way to play and that the industry and players with different playstyles are doing it "wrong".

PS I'm going to ignore your comments on competitive gaming because you have no idea what i am and missed the reality by a fucking million miles. If you spent more time trying to understand where i am coming from rather than trying to slot me into some easilly mockable sterotype then you might actually learn something but alas
That comment was more general one...the one aimed specifically at you was how I simply do not subscribe to the idea of "only the awesome people may pass" in entertainment...which I seem to have still read into correctly, considering how earlier in this post you talk about your "hardcore" gaming style.

Also, I do understand fully where you're coming from. I am disagreeing with that very initial position. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I don't understand your points.

your 20 years of gaming must have started the moment your exited the womb ;p
Do the math again and maybe you'll want to redact that ";p" at the end. Or this entire comment, for that matter.

Edit: Blasted quote marks.
 

CloudAtlas

New member
Mar 16, 2013
873
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
(everything)
I really don't get what your problem is. You couldn't care less about the story of a game? That's totally cool, nobody says you should.

But all your statements about good stories being unnecessary or even bad for a game, objectively? To most people (I guess) story and gameplay are both important parts of the narrative of a game. If the gameplay is fun enough to be worthwhile in itself, that's great, but what could be wrong with giving the player another reason - desire to experience the story - to carry on?

The specific examples you cited are just about story elements being in conflict with the gameplay. Perhaps they even qualify as "ludonarrative dissonance". You know what, nobody likes that, and people who care the most about good stories perhaps the least. But that's just a matter of bad implementation, it doesn't mean that stories are intrinsically detrimental.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
Or, you know, if you want your skills challenged, take up something that requires manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination and/or puzzle solving skills. This argument goes both way, you know. The fact that you think there is ONE TRUE WAY of enjoying games just shows your ignorance.

OT:
EzraPound said:
My question, though, is: isn't this kind of a cheap way to tell a story?
Yes. No. Man, there really should be a word that means both of these at the same time. No, "maybe" just doesn't cut it for me.

IllumInaTIma said:
Plot twist is just a tool
The correct answer, ladies and gentlemen. It's a tool, by its very nature it cannot be good or bad, it's how it's being applied. Sure, a lot of the times the plot twists feel forced or may, in fact, just suck but that due to how they were used. Also, they do seem to quite often be used like a set of shiny keys to dangle in front of the audience and, regrettably, it manages to work as cheap entertainment. This encourages more hackjobs to put a plot twist for the sake of the plot twist. However, that's still not the fault of the plot twists themselves - it is how they were used.
 

TheDoctor455

Friendly Neighborhood Time Lord
Apr 1, 2009
12,257
0
0
CannibalCorpses said:
I agree, plot twists are just a gimmick and they are generally used to hide weak gameplay. Good games don't rely on the story narrative to carry the experience and people who think they do aren't really into games but more into stories. Goto the library or watch a film if you care about story, play a game if you want to be challenged on your skills!
Uh no.

Games CAN deliver great stories through gameplay. Look at say, Missile Command. Your skills are irrelevant in that one. Defeat is inevitable with that game. And its all a commentary on nuclear war.

Fallout New Vegas had great gameplay (aside from bugs) and several great stories.

The point I'm trying to make is that when a team is focused on telling a story, every aspect of that game will help tell that story. Look at Dark Souls or Portal or Bioshock Infinite for an idea of what I'm talking about.
 

JemothSkarii

Thanks!
Nov 9, 2010
1,169
0
0
Depends on how they do the plot twists really; if it's something along the lines of Spec Ops: The Line, yes they did good. But if it's something like say (for me) Bioshock Infinite, then they did badly.

Last game to actually surprise me with plot twists before Spec Ops was The World Ends With You...but they did go crazy with plot twists.

For the record, I can't enjoy a game without a story, even if I have to make my own. Then again being competitive in games makes me physically ill.