Games hurt stories, and stories hurt games.
- Thread starter Wuggy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Spam? Are we not allowed to link to articles to start a discussion? I didn't see that in the rules! My apologies.
This is stupid. There are many examples of games without storylines, such as minecraft (you may have heard of it, it's reasonably well known) Multiplayer generally(not always)has no storyline and is along the line of;
Go to point A and steal this thing and take it to point B, or
Go kill all enemy dudes
Plus you may want to look at extra credits's videos on issues such as gaming as an art form. There is no reason that games MUST or MUST NOT have a storyline, that's stupid and unproductive.
Go to point A and steal this thing and take it to point B, or
Go kill all enemy dudes
Plus you may want to look at extra credits's videos on issues such as gaming as an art form. There is no reason that games MUST or MUST NOT have a storyline, that's stupid and unproductive.
Games do not need a story but a story will be made. For example Minecraft does not have a story but any player could tell the story of what they did on their first night. Stories can help create context as well though. For example in Fallout 3 the story in mostly your own creation, where you go, encounters you have but the actual story gives you context and allows you to fill in the gaps of your player both before and after.
@maxmanrules - please read my article before you reply. You asked if I know what Minecraft is, but I actually reference Minecraft in the article! To address what you've said: Minecraft isn't a game, because it has no goals. What makes you think it is? If you think Minecraft is a game, then, would you say LEGO is a game? Because the two are VERY similar.
Further, "There are many examples of games without storylines" - I never said there weren't.
I've watched Extra Credits, they're good. Thanks for the very general tip.
@Phisi - "Games do not need a story but a story will be made." I addressed this near the end of the article. That's a completely different thing than building a game AROUND a story. I hope that the difference is clear!
Further, "There are many examples of games without storylines" - I never said there weren't.
I've watched Extra Credits, they're good. Thanks for the very general tip.
@Phisi - "Games do not need a story but a story will be made." I addressed this near the end of the article. That's a completely different thing than building a game AROUND a story. I hope that the difference is clear!
Well, the one point I can think of is this: Every modern game, has at least a tenuous connection to Dungeons and dragons, which is really where storytelling and gaming first collided and it's still one of the most played games in the world.
And it is boring as hell unless the DM can come up with a plot.
However, I would like to note that a lot of developers seem to forget that games are more than a story delivery system, that is when gaming becomes harmed by stories, when people are more interested in placing intrigue into gaming than putting gaming into gaming.
It should also be noted that a game like Bioshock, which was lauded for it's amazing atmosphere, would seem really shitty as a movie, because the interactivity was a key to capturing the atmosphere.
But then, I could list a ton of great games that have excuse plots or none at all.
It's a mixed bag really.
And it is boring as hell unless the DM can come up with a plot.
However, I would like to note that a lot of developers seem to forget that games are more than a story delivery system, that is when gaming becomes harmed by stories, when people are more interested in placing intrigue into gaming than putting gaming into gaming.
It should also be noted that a game like Bioshock, which was lauded for it's amazing atmosphere, would seem really shitty as a movie, because the interactivity was a key to capturing the atmosphere.
But then, I could list a ton of great games that have excuse plots or none at all.
It's a mixed bag really.
There are gameplay focused games like multiplayer and sports games. But a single player completing game generally needs an engaging story or an extremely strong gameplay gimmick. Singleplayer gameplay is usually unexciting. Even mass effect, fallout and gta have generic dull gameplay and are redeemed by engaging settings, narratives and characters. I loved heavy rain and think it was more memorable and exhilerating than any movie, but LA Noire was nowhere near as good as a tv series and it's gameplay was very simplistic. The only redeeming feature was the amazing acting/graphics and the underused setting.
The problem is that games have 3 layers of interactivity, not just one. Some think games are just sport gameplay, but narrative and setting interactivity are just as important. I don't remotely enjoy the combat gameplay in singleplayer games. Multiplayer is a million times superior for that. Singleplayer needs creativity and originality in the layers that multiplayer cannot offer. Most games fail in this by trying to copy movies. Instead they need to create their own interactive role playing narratives which are far more complex and difficult but far more rewarding for the player.
I think it's indicative of the difference that my top 10 favourite games of all time are all singleplayer, but my top 5 most played are all multiplayer/sports. It's almost a seperate medium. I do not credit the designer of a multiplayer game as highly with my enjoyment of it as with a singleplayer game, instead I credit the players.
The worst types of games are linear in all 3 layers. Linear levels, linear narrative and generic simplistic gameplay. Games like Call of duty, FFXIII, Uncharted, Gears of War, Alan Wake and so on are extremely over-rated. They don't add to the complexity that game design has accumulated. They start from scratch with an idea of what a video game is, and it's something akin to a movie stretched out for 10 hours by dull shooting mechanics and walking through corridors. Half-life 2 and Portal only succeed because they have strong gameplay gimmicks and aren't just shoot the bad guys which is more entertaining in multiplayer.
The problem is that games have 3 layers of interactivity, not just one. Some think games are just sport gameplay, but narrative and setting interactivity are just as important. I don't remotely enjoy the combat gameplay in singleplayer games. Multiplayer is a million times superior for that. Singleplayer needs creativity and originality in the layers that multiplayer cannot offer. Most games fail in this by trying to copy movies. Instead they need to create their own interactive role playing narratives which are far more complex and difficult but far more rewarding for the player.
I think it's indicative of the difference that my top 10 favourite games of all time are all singleplayer, but my top 5 most played are all multiplayer/sports. It's almost a seperate medium. I do not credit the designer of a multiplayer game as highly with my enjoyment of it as with a singleplayer game, instead I credit the players.
The worst types of games are linear in all 3 layers. Linear levels, linear narrative and generic simplistic gameplay. Games like Call of duty, FFXIII, Uncharted, Gears of War, Alan Wake and so on are extremely over-rated. They don't add to the complexity that game design has accumulated. They start from scratch with an idea of what a video game is, and it's something akin to a movie stretched out for 10 hours by dull shooting mechanics and walking through corridors. Half-life 2 and Portal only succeed because they have strong gameplay gimmicks and aren't just shoot the bad guys which is more entertaining in multiplayer.
Games don't always need a story to make the game fun, only a premise.
Plants vs. Zombies - zombies want your brains, plant stuff to protect. How is this game fun? It just is, and story be damned.
For a less (air-quote) casual (air-quote) example, Duke Nukem. Technically, there's some kind of a story about aliens stealing your chicks BUT WHO CARES? Blow shit up! Endless one-liners! Bewbs!
On the other hand, if a game does have a story, that's even better. It gives you and your actions better direction than "go where the objective arrow tells you to go, don't ask why." Your encounters with the characters in the game, be they ally, enemy or neither, can carry meaning, even if it's just some tool who spouts the same gibberish over and over.
So, yeah, game stories are awesome.
Plants vs. Zombies - zombies want your brains, plant stuff to protect. How is this game fun? It just is, and story be damned.
For a less (air-quote) casual (air-quote) example, Duke Nukem. Technically, there's some kind of a story about aliens stealing your chicks BUT WHO CARES? Blow shit up! Endless one-liners! Bewbs!
On the other hand, if a game does have a story, that's even better. It gives you and your actions better direction than "go where the objective arrow tells you to go, don't ask why." Your encounters with the characters in the game, be they ally, enemy or neither, can carry meaning, even if it's just some tool who spouts the same gibberish over and over.
So, yeah, game stories are awesome.
"Games don't always need a story to make the game fun, only a premise."
What's the premise of "Tetris"? How about "Go"? "Connect Four"?
What's the premise of "Tetris"? How about "Go"? "Connect Four"?
Isn't the premise of Tetris just to line up shapes to fill up a horizontal row as many times as possible before the time field fills up? There doesn't have to be a deep premise, just a reason to do something to avoid failure.DinofarmGames said:
OT: I think lackluster story telling has been overstated in gaming. Poor storytelling lacks everywhere, even in movies. Several films, usually action movies and comedies, are just one scenario after another leading up to a conclusion to the events of the film. Even Crash is just a series of events without a clear, concise story - and in this case it by no means sacrifices meaning or depth. Furthermore, gaming is meant, I think, to be casual - not the worthless casual, like Wii Sports, but fun and stress-reducing - thus, we don't always need a deep story. Yet, if we do, there's always the rarities like Bioshock that are able to at least establish a rudimentary story. I would definitely like to see more depth in gaming stories, but again, its not a pressing issue.
Exactly. Another reason why Majong shouldn't have even been in the March Madness developer thing, let alone won it: 1) The developer, Majong, has yet to even release anything; Minecraft hasn't been released, and 2) Minecraft is not a game, it's just LEGOs. LEGOs is not a game. When you were a kid, you didn't PLAY LEGOs, you'd played WITH LEGOs.DinofarmGames said:
---
Anyways I see no reason why games can't have novel-like stories. I don't think story can hurt a game unless it's just a bad story. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a game that's pretty much pure gameplay, other times I want a good story to go along with my gameplay. I love cut-scenes when they are good cut-scenes.
I just see a game with a story a "game web" in-between each story point. Here's the image from the article:
http://www.dinofarmgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/story-vs-game.jpg
Now put that game web between each story dot and that's how games with stories work, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that setup. I decide how the character gets from one story point to another and that's part of the story. I'm playing Deus Ex Human Revolution now and part of the game's story when I'm playing is Adam Jenson ghosting around and taking out enemies without being seen. In my Deus Ex story, Adam took out a whole fucking gang without being seen.
The control over the art that the player/audience has is unique to the video game medium. That's what is so special about games, combining interactivity with art. Why would you want to take away story (or anything) from games?
Games with a story is basically like you watching say a James Bond movie and James Bond stopping and asking you what to do and he does it, but even in that scenario you are not doing, just deciding. And in a video game, you get to DO and DECIDE. Movies nor any other medium (except choose you own adventure books to an extent) can do that, only video games can. And, video games are allowing for more and more story and character interaction than ever before like in the Mass Effect series where you make dialog choices and story choices.
The times story doesn't work is when the story isn't good or it's not paced well. Writing in games is not very good either and that's a problem. The problem is not story itself but bad story, bad characters, and bad writing. You don't see movie screenwriters or authors writing game stories very often. So game stories right now are kind of like in an amateur hour phase. Also, the game itself is usually created before the story is even penned and then the story has to fit into the game levels instead of the game and story fitting in with each other.
Any combination of story and game can work: game with no story, game with a deep and complex story, game with an action movie type story, etc. Stories can only hurt games and games can only hurt stories if they aren't properly integrated into each other.
Nice of you to pick a title that shows you're full of shit to save us the trouble of reading your article. 
Might I add that "game" may be as much of a misnomer for the media as "comic books" is for "graphic novels".
That is, we use the term "game" to describe them, but they're not really limited to being games. They're in interactive medium and should be seen as such. And thus are a superior method to be able to tell a story that other mediums are limited.
Simple text read does not have the capacity to tell a story that intricate programming language does. Simple video does not have the capacity to tell a story that intricate programming does. Heck, even people tried to tell a story merely through sound such as old radio shows. This used to be common when television was less affordable. I think limiting to just calling them "games" is like limiting everything to sports to just calling them "games", sure there are challenges and competition involved, but then what is parkour? Just like we should look at "sports" and more than just "mere games", we should look at video games as more than just "mere games". What we call video "games" are really in interdisciplinary field that takes from all other media before it. They take from books and other forms of text, they take from movies, they take text, video and sound of all varieties. They pull it all together with intricate programming and make a sum of all parts that's hopefully quite sublime. The real trick is knowing when all are appropriate.
And of course, while games don't have to have a clear story, and shouldn't take away from the interactive quality of game. Stories are one of the things that games can do well, and push further than any media before them. So while stories aren't something we should limit ourselves to, it is something we should work toward. I would also like to add that it's hard to go wrong with some kind of characterization/character development in most cases.
That is, we use the term "game" to describe them, but they're not really limited to being games. They're in interactive medium and should be seen as such. And thus are a superior method to be able to tell a story that other mediums are limited.
Simple text read does not have the capacity to tell a story that intricate programming language does. Simple video does not have the capacity to tell a story that intricate programming does. Heck, even people tried to tell a story merely through sound such as old radio shows. This used to be common when television was less affordable. I think limiting to just calling them "games" is like limiting everything to sports to just calling them "games", sure there are challenges and competition involved, but then what is parkour? Just like we should look at "sports" and more than just "mere games", we should look at video games as more than just "mere games". What we call video "games" are really in interdisciplinary field that takes from all other media before it. They take from books and other forms of text, they take from movies, they take text, video and sound of all varieties. They pull it all together with intricate programming and make a sum of all parts that's hopefully quite sublime. The real trick is knowing when all are appropriate.
And of course, while games don't have to have a clear story, and shouldn't take away from the interactive quality of game. Stories are one of the things that games can do well, and push further than any media before them. So while stories aren't something we should limit ourselves to, it is something we should work toward. I would also like to add that it's hard to go wrong with some kind of characterization/character development in most cases.