Games Hurt Stories, Stories Hurt Games

[BoogityBoogityMan]

Good article http://www.dinofarmgames.com/?p=219

My summary:

So what is a game? A system of rules, that create challenges and competition which the player can then increase their mastery of by playing the game. A good game is simple to learn, but has deep mechanisms whose complexity emerges through play, e.g. chess, scrabble, football, basketball, tag, etc. The events in a good game change every time the game is played, and therefore has infinite replayablity. They teach us important meta-skills like patience, focus, strategy, confidence, adaptability. They show us new ways to look at our own psychology, and that of our opponents They teach us to analyze patterns and abstract them into easy to process bites. They teach us to learn a new set of controls and allow it to become an extension of our own bodies. It is not controversial to say that games exercise the mind in a unique way that no other activity can.


What is a story? Its a composed sequence of events, a static series of conflicts and resolutions with a climax and a resolution. At the end of the day, a story is a static list, a sequential art; this, then this, then this. We can draw the experience of *story* therefore, in a straight line with nodes representing various events. I need to make clear that I am by no means saying that stories are simpler than games. Both stories and games are, in their own way, complex machines that have to actually function. Good stories have many threads that interweave with each other in a graceful and beautiful way. In terms of what the user ends up experiencing, it is a linear list of events. Games are meant to be experienced many times, and stories are meant to be experienced once.

So at the most basic level, games and stories have fundamentally incompatible underlying mechanism. And the more story you shoehorn into a game, the more limited the game becomes, sometimes to the point of 'press x to continue story' qte events.

Most modern video games are very similar to pro wrestling. The story is all written out for you, it is just a matter of you loading it up and acting it out. Press X now. Run from this point to this point now. The games bombard you with compliments in the form of achievements and other meta-rewards for following a linear list of instructions that look a lot like the linear list of instructions pro wrestling actors study and rehearse before a match. Prowrestling has no tension, no suspense; it is pure spectacle and the 'players' are just actors. A real game, like football, can create immense tension, and the outcome is never known before hand. It takes an entirely different set of skills and mental abilities to play a game, then it does to act in a scripted match.

To reiterate: When the gameplay of a game has to line up with a previously composed narrative (which is inherently linear), it severely limits how interesting our gameplay web can be. When the plot of a story has to constantly include some form of player interaction, it breaks up the rhythm of the story in a way that undermines the tension and drama of the story, and, frankly, it can just seem pretty silly. If you wanted to really make a story out of Shadow of the Colossus that really reflected the gameplay, the plot would be quite repetitive and boring.

I think the reasons developers do this is because it is much easier to create a decent story than a decent game; and by creating story driven video games that have no replayability, selling news games is much easier.

 

[ResonanceGames]

Eh, he raises some good points, but I think the basic premise is a little flawed. A story can be used to give context to player actions, which makes them more meaningful than if they happened in a vacuum. We as humans relate to human endeavors much more than we do a set of systems with no drama attached. I'd argue that the problem isn't stories, it's linear implementation of stories in the quest to be more like movies. That's what you see in stuff like COD, Gears of War, etc.


Deus Ex is a good example of a game that manages to tell a decent story while still managing to have deep gaming systems that allow for a lot of player input. The story only adapted minimally to what you did (usually just in the form of an NPC taking notice of something, like "Why did you kill Anna Navarre, JC!?") but each environment left tons and tons of room for player authorship within the context of the story, which is what's really important.

In fact, I'd argue that there is waaaay more potential for player authorship in Deus Ex than there is in a lot of "pure" games like Tetris, even though it has a pre-made, overarching story behind it.

 

[evilneko]

I think the article is written by some guy who makes cute little toys for people to play with on their phones, and doesn't actually understand the segment of gaming that he's talking about.

Would Deus Ex, Fallout, System Shock, or any number of other games be improved by stripping out the story?

And this...

Most modern video games are very similar to pro wrestling. The story is all written out for you, it is just a matter of you loading it up and acting it out. Press X now. Run from this point to this point now. The games bombard you with compliments in the form of achievements and other meta-rewards for following a linear list of instructions that look a lot like the linear list of instructions pro wrestling actors study and rehearse before a match. Prowrestling has no tension, no suspense; it is pure spectacle and the 'players' are just actors. A real game, like football, can create immense tension, and the outcome is never known before hand. It takes an entirely different set of skills and mental abilities to play a game, then it does to act in a scripted match.

...is a load of horseshit.

 

[deathspa202]

You make some really good points and some very interesting arguments, I think this discussion is a very important one to have for the medium to move forward. However I have some disagreements with some of your ideas that hopefully you will be able to understand.

First off

A story can be used to give context to player actions, which makes them more meaningful than if they happened in a vacuum.

I would like to raise another example for the sake of argument, that is Final Fantasy VI. There is a sense of importance and great tension when you are battling Kefka on the mountain just before the world of ruin. This is because of the way the story has built him up to make him this evil, nigh unstoppable force. If it weren't for the story the battle would have the same feel and importance of any previous boss battle.

You also draw the comparison of story in modern day games to the story in pro wrestling. This is a very interesting comparison as story in many games acts as an engine to aggregate the action in the same way story does in pro wrestling. However would Uncharted, Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, or Mass Effect be as great as they are without their stories?

Indeed it is true that story and game are fundamentally different things, however, the term game has evolved. A video game, especially in the modern sense, is not the same as chess or foot ball. Video games have transcended the simple definition of game into something different and novel.

 

[Savagezion]

I completely disagree. Story webs are getting more and more interesting as time goes on. If we look at games without story we see that there is a very linear form of progression. Bejeweled, Plants vs. Zombies, Tetris, etc. These webs don't get more diverse, they get less diverse. Story offers a way to diversify the gameplay web by offering the player choices that mean something to them. They evaluate where they want the gameplay to venture off into.

Using football as a "go to game" is kinda self defeating because that is meant for 2 opposing players. For single player games, removing story tends to bring in linearity.

If you wanted to really make a story out of Shadow of the Colossus that really reflected the gameplay, the plot would be quite repetitive and boring.

This is what separates a writer with vision from one that doesn't. You could make a movie about SotC and a good movie at that. You would need internal dialogue to be brought in though as it is a different format. With a game, the player already has their own internal dialogue going on. When watching a movie, the viewer doesn't so you have to explain character motivations and attachments TO the viewer instead of thrusting those things ONTO the viewer. As well, you could remove the mindless running to the Colossi parts and replace it with flashbacks of Wander and Mono with each flashback leading up to how she died. A Shadow of the Colossus movie could be emotional and exciting both all the way through without becoming boring once. To do it right though, it would probably need to be 2-2.5 hrs long though.

When the plot of a story has to constantly include some form of player interaction, it breaks up the rhythm of the story in a way that undermines the tension and drama of the story, and, frankly, it can just seem pretty silly.

This can be true but isn't always the case. Developers are getting better at this and the narrative quality in stories within games have increased drastically this generation. As mentioned before about the SotC movie, people need to understand this is a new format and developers are still trying to learn the best ways to use it. It is clear that what work for movies doesn't work for games. Just like what works for novels doesn't work for movies. Generally, the book usually IS better as that was the format the story was made for. In some cases though, the movie can rival the book which means a proper translation took place.
Games are so new people don't even know how to translate them well yet. That is why most movie games suck and most game movies suck. Nobody is really too familiar with the game format (which is constantly changing and evolving currently) to really be able to make a clear translation.
Developers have to design the story around player action and not player action around story which I think is what you are circling but not quite pinning down. With that, I agree. But figuring out how to do that properly without making a dull story as a result is tougher than it sounds.

I think the reasons developers do this is because it is much easier to create a decent story than a decent game; and by creating story driven video games that have no replayability, selling news games is much easier.

I have beaten Uncharted ~5 times now and Uncharted 2 ~3 and I plan to beat them many more times in the future. A good story driven video game has replayability just like any DvD when I like the movie. Sometimes I just want to watch Drake's tale and shoot some shit along the way with him.

 

[Lilani]

FIrst of all, I think it should be noted your little graph for games is not accurate for all games, narrative and non-narrative alike.

Anyway, I feel that games have the ability to tell stories and engage the "listener" in ways that linear stories cannot. Because let's face it--life isn't always a neat little line of cause-to-effect. Things happen, situations escalate, complications arise, choices and forks in the road emerge. Games like Mass Effect and whatnot really tap into that. You aren't just told the story--you become a part of the story itself. You define it, and you face the consequences of your actions. You aren't just absorbing, you're experiencing. There's a part in Mass Effect 2 where you have a chance to sabotage a gunship in order to make the fight ahead easier. But, to do it you have to kill the mechanic of the ship. You have only a couple of seconds to decide if you want to kill to make it easier, or spill less blood and take the harder route.

I love the world of Mass Effect because it's so lush. There are dozens upon dozens of stories to explore. And not just quests, there are a ton of NPCs you can just stand back and listen in on, giving you little snippets of their lives and their worlds. That much exposition would be impossible to fit into a book or a film. But in games, you can explore these however much or little you want. The stories are there for the taking, but you can take them in at your own leisure.

And besides, haven't you ever rewatched a movie? Or reread a book? Or replayed a game? I know I've done all those things. Just because you've experienced a story once doesn't mean you're done with it. There are many stories out there worth re-experiencing. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Ratatouille and have consistently found more and more little details and nuances I never noticed before. I've reread a couple of book series', and I've replayed Half-Life 2 and both of the episodes at least once each. So your whole "games are meant to be replayed and stories can only be experienced once" thing just makes no sense to me. If the story is told and presented well enough to make you really resonate with it, it can give you that same emotional high again and again.

 

[kyogen]

Narrative is inherently linear and cannot tolerate disruption and repetition? I don't think the author of that article will be winning any awards for literary analysis. Narrative can and does function as just one more system affecting an environment. If some games use elaborate narratives poorly, that is poor design, not an inherent flaw of narrative itself. Frankly, the point at which you have stated a rule, you have created a mini-narrative.

 

[dimensional]

Not sure entirely what youre getting at are you saying that games and stories are at complete odds to one another and can never compliment the other? and whats this nonsense about good stories only meant to be experienced once surely you cant believe that to be the case a great story can be experienced many times over and still remain powerful even though you know what will happen and dont forget things like the biblical stories people still listen to them over and over and over again (its not for me though).

As for games while many are designed to be played many times over they only remain relevant as long as people are invested in the outcome which is usually one of three things you win,lose or draw which is far fewer outcomes than some story related games. Both stories and games are devices that can teach but a story is much more likely to outlast a game and reach a wider amount of people purely because of its passive nature.

But back specifically to stories in games I think they can (and do) greatly compliment each other even though you are right in that the story usually drives the gameplay and not vice versa except where it exists as a token gesture such as in super mario bros but that does not negate a good games replayability either sure I might not replay that RPG more than a couple of times every few years but each time I do it may take me 40 hours + while I replay a card game many more times but it dosent last that long really and it is pretty much throw away fun (unless theres money involved but thats an outside factor).

I personally usually get more out of games that spins a good yarn and has enjoyable gameplay (even if the gameplay dosent 100% reflect the story) than a game that has no story as it either does nothing for me (pretty much all sports) or I just get bored of it after a while and suffer burn out (like chess) I really need a motive to continue and usually the story is that motive even if it is only token.

Not sure why you think it is easier to create a good story than a good game if anything I think the opposite is true particularly where video games are concerned.

 

[Tupolev]

What is a story? Its a composed sequence of events, a static series of conflicts and resolutions with a climax and a resolution. At the end of the day, a story is a static list, a sequential art; this, then this, then this. We can draw the experience of *story* therefore, in a straight line with nodes representing various events. I need to make clear that I am by no means saying that stories are simpler than games. Both stories and games are, in their own way, complex machines that have to actually function. Good stories have many threads that interweave with each other in a graceful and beautiful way. In terms of what the user ends up experiencing, it is a linear list of events. Games are meant to be experienced many times, and stories are meant to be experienced once.

Nonsense. Many stories are designed to be able to be experienced many times, and even when the structure of execution is the same, actually experiencing them can differ drastically.

More pointedly, there's no reason whatsoever that a story needs to be 100% rigid in the structure of execution every time. If you read a book several times, do you necessarily read it at the same pace, in the same moods, and in the overall same ways each time? I would contend that player involvement in games does not necessarily have to be much different. Suppose there's a spot in a game where the player is presented with a beautiful vista, and suppose there's a shot in a film where the director pans across a similar beautiful vista. In both cases, the action is related, and the person experiencing it is quite possibly treated to a very similar experience; the only real difference is that in the former case, the user regulates the timing to their preferences, while in the later case, the editor regulates it according to their preferences. That is to say, editing and gameplay are playing strikingly similar roles, and their results can be nigh-identical. This can of course be extended well beyond smelling the roses, as both editing and gameplay can regulate things like intense rhythmic experiences as well.
I'm not arguing strictly along the lines of rigid set-pieces, either; one of the unique capacities of games is to regulate these experiences according to the immediate emotional demands of particular players, something which very dynamic gameplay experiences can take advantage of beautifully.

//==========================

And finally, about that notion that stories have to be totally static sequences of events.

Is this notion really anything more than a convention that arose in a world where technological limitations forced this to be the case? The very fact that artists constantly spin old tales in many varied new ways seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's an age-old problem that few games ever manage to address properly, mostly because it's a very difficult problem to address, either do to complexity in design, or simple time or cost constraints.

**NOTE: I'm focusing solely on the consequences of Linearity vs Non-Linearity in game stories**
Linear elements, "Plot Railroads" exist in the majority of games, and play out like a movie (or Pro-Wrestling) as described.

However, there are a few games where not only the outcome, but the plot itself branches. And the biggest problem with creating stories like that is that it follows Fractal Logic, with each ending generally requiring an entirely new set of dialog and scenarios to work with.

Just off the top of my head, Westwood's Blade Runner game is almost entirely story-driven, and it branches off into one of several possible endings. Subtracting similar/identical elements, you end up with a conservative estimate of about 4 different endings, and even then there is a large degree of interpretation for those endings (Think "Am I a replicant?").

There was so much extra dialog, and gameplay content to produce that it actively hurt the actual quality of the gameplay in general; it couldn't become very complex or deep at all because they simply wouldn't have the time/budget to make it all work.
Big Budget Productions are still rather finite, and you have to please the investors on top of that or you'll get your project axed in short order.

Or for a game that's more gameplay-driven than a mystery-thriller, lets look at Radiata Stories.
Most people reading this probably have never heard of it (Unskippable did their intro here, though, so maybe not), but there comes a point in the story where you choose a definitive "side" in the conflict the game has been building up to.

Unlike "moral choices" this decision has VERY profound consequences; it doesn't just alter which ending you get, but the entire last third of the game!
The point here being that the last third of the game had to contain twice as much content (because the paths are mutually-exclusive), and this is the simplest split, one of two choices!

Imagine a game that did more splits than that! Think of all the story one would have to write, AND gameplay content to design. Given the high cost of creating just ONE path (linear) in a AAA grade game today, one can quickly ascertain just how incredibly expensive it would become.
And this also means that there is always a fair amount of content that the player isn't going to see in just one playthrough; given how the modern gaming business prefers players to buy, play, and then move onto the sequel or multiplayer later, providing strong replaybility via content is something of a business no-no, because they'd rather you play that quantity of content in a sequel.

Or to be more mathematical, which option looks better to the publisher:

-Player buying Game A ($60 USD), with 2.0x Content
-Player buying Game B ($60 USD), with 1.0x Content, and its Sequel Game C at $60 USD

For the same cost of content development.

(in reality, today it's more like buying Game A at $60 USD with 0.8x Content, with the rest being withheld to sell as DLC, and then hoping you go to buy the sequel at the same ratios. I do love how the Publishers spin it as "Giving the player the freedom to pay as much for the game as they want.", when the player never actually sets the prices.)

In summary, just from a content-development perspective, I can agree with how the linearity/non-linearity and expansion of a story (which is different from a book or movie, as the input from the player matters) can hurt gameplay.

 

[GiantRaven]

The big failing here is the assumption that all stories are linear. A statement that is utterly false, especially in a medium such as videogames. Look at games like Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol, or Arcanum to see where stories can diverge at set points without sacrificing the overall cohesiveness of the story.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'll respond to this at greater length when I'm not typing on my phone, but for now suffice to say that A) as Salman Rushdie has noted, games can be used to tell branching or "sideways" narratives quite effectively, and B) story can enrich activities even if it is not the point of those activities: you don't play a hitbox in FPS games, you play a person with a gun.

 

[DinofarmGames]

Hey all - I'm the author of the article in question.

Firstly, I want to mention that it is *entirely* possible to jam a mediocre story into a game, or vice versa. My point is that there will be damage, usually on both sides of that battle.

What's really the most important thing in a good story? Character arcs. The transitions characters make as the story progresses. How do character arcs develop? When the characters make decisions. Now, writing a good story is very hard precisely because you have to have several characters, each with interesting and meaningful character arcs, all working together in unison. This is not easy at all.

So now, we throw the player into the game and allow him to make decisions, instead. You should be clear on this point:

If you are saying that this player's decisions won't damage the fragile structure of a story, then you are saying that stories are very easy to write. They can be written by authors on the fly, for that is what a player is doing when he is making in-game decisions: he is writing the story.

So can you improvise a great story? I'd be impressed if you could improvise a mediocre one.

-Keith

 

[Tupolev]

So now, we throw the player into the game and allow him to make decisions, instead. You should be clear on this point:

If you are saying that this player's decisions won't damage the fragile structure of a story, then you are saying that stories are very easy to write. They can be written by authors on the fly, for that is what a player is doing when he is making in-game decisions: he is writing the story.

So can you improvise a great story? I'd be impressed if you could improvise a mediocre one.

Gameplay decisions and variations, even huge ones, don't necessarily have a massive effect on narrative flow. As I implied above, games are often even structured in ways which take advantage of the structural variation to create consistency between viewers/viewings (I used the "smelling the roses" example first because this is a very simple and obvious case of this principle in action).

But this also brings up what the narrative is constructed out of. Narrative flow can be a lot more than just the little specific structured tidbits. I would contend that this...

What's really the most important thing in a good story? Character arcs.

...is an extremely limited and simplisted way of looking at it. I think you've fallen into applying an empirical model to conclude that the usual plot/character drive balance model so common in modern literature is the ONLY way of doing things. Tons of games that are considered to have terrific storytelling don't follow this guideline at all, and it's not like games are unique here. The film Battleship Potemkin* spends most of its running time more or less without any particular characters in play (aside from the occasional unnamed charicatures that exist for a few moments here or there). If you want to argue that there's any sort of core character arc to it at all, at the very least you'll have to acknowledge a very abstract and generalized definition of "character."

*By the way, if you want to give it a shot, watch the Kino version, which I think Netflix uses for instant watch. The public domain variant of it is almost unwatchably bad.

 

[The Abhorrent]

I think it should be noted that games which aim to follow the more traditional version of a narrative or story are more or less doing it wrong. This isn't to games can't have a good story, however; there's actually plenty of evidence to the contrary. Back to the main issue, the difference between the audience in a traditional narrative and the player in a game is very much a fundamental detail:

The player is a participant in the story.

Essentially, the fourth wall doesn't really exist when it comes to gaming... maybe, I'm not entirely sure that's the right definition here. Anyhow, the key detail is that the player is actively involved in the events of the narrative instead of just watching them transpire; this applies to even cases where the player feels like they aren't having much of an effect on the story, because they still participate in the events regardless of their outcome. This fundamental difference means that much of the theory which has been established for theater, literature, and film simply does not apply to games; in those the audience does little more than observe, while in a game they act.

Still, this doesn't mean that games should abandon storytelling in games altogether. The challenge is coming up with an alternative approach to storytelling. Developpers are getting better at this, but there's still a few issues which need to be worked out.

---

To give a few examples where gaming shines in terms of narrative...

The Audience Surrogate
One of the most interesting little things about many stories is the presence of a character which is generally referred to as the "audience surrogate", whose purpose is to be the audience's eyes & ears; someone for the observers to identify with. In gaming, we have the "player character"; the purest form of the audience surrogate, because the player (aka: the audience) acts through this character to become involved in the story. This leads to a lot of player characters lacking definition by default, because their purpose is for player to define them.

Atmosphere & Immersion
Getting involved into a setting or story is generally a good way to engage the audience, something which all forms of media can accomplish. But again, the player is an active participant rather than an observer; so atmosphere and immersion can be enhanced by having the setting react to the player's actions. This is something non-interactive media can never hope to achieve, period.

Implicit Storytelling
As a general rule, info-dumps and exposition are a bad thing. They break immersion, take the audience out of the work while someone explains the internal logic of the story and/or setting; while you can make it seem more natural by having a character give the explanation in the appropriate context, there's a good possibility it'll still bore the audience. The phrase "Show, don't tell" sums it up quite nicely. This is where games allow for something quite unique -- the chance to explore the setting. Finding little details like written notes, the placement of clutter, the whisperings of the NPCs, and so on. These don't need to tell the whole story, and it's probably best if don't; the key factor is that the player is given the opportunity to piece together the puzzle for themselves, or at least find clues to the big reveal later in the story. In non-interactive media, the audience might hypothetically ask questions about background details but don't have the opportunity to really take a look at them; in games, they definitely can. This is pretty good for when the player is exploring the aftermath of some event, as they can piece together the history and/or chain of events which led to it's current state.

---

Now, there's one key detail in gaming which presents a more difficult problem:

Pacing

Pacing plays a huge role in any decent story, but in games it's more or less shot to hell by default. The only reasonable way to manage the pacing of a game is to make it linear to the extreme, with minimal (or no) diversions from the main route. Any game which moves into non-linear territory will have huge pacing problems, and at best only individual sub-sections of the game can have half-decent pacing (and only internally). A game's difficulty curve can certainly lead the pacing down the right path, but it's still very hard to nail down.

Unlike some other issues, pacing can't really be ignored either in games. Terrible pacing may cause the player to lose interest in the game, and good pacing can keep them going; it's just with the player setting the pace, the best you can do is encourage them to go down the path you want.

 

[ResonanceGames]

So now, we throw the player into the game and allow him to make decisions, instead. You should be clear on this point:

If you are saying that this player's decisions won't damage the fragile structure of a story, then you are saying that stories are very easy to write. They can be written by authors on the fly, for that is what a player is doing when he is making in-game decisions: he is writing the story.

So can you improvise a great story? I'd be impressed if you could improvise a mediocre one.

I think this actually does more to refute your point than support it.

Shared authorship between the developer and player is great precisely because emergent stories created solely by the gamer/game mechanics are generally only good in the moment-to-moment gameplay. They don't usually make for good, broader story beats.

That's why game mechanics often work much better when they exist within the framework of an existing story. Earlier, I mentioned Deus Ex, a game that created shared authorship by giving the player a set of goals to accomplish -- goals which come straight from a rigid story -- and then allowed the player to use the game's systems to accomplish those goals anyway they wanted to, effectively filling in the moment-to-moment gaps.


EDIT:

Example: So take Football. You are presented with a goal: reach the end zone with the ball to score a touchdown. Why is that your goal? Because that's how you beat the other team. Now use the mechanics of the game to accomplish that goal. Fair enough, but that's not a very compelling reason for a lot of people.

A good story-driven game takes the same approach of giving the player a goal, but it puts that goal into the context of relatable human drama.

Example: Again, you are presented with a goal: rescue the hostages. Why is that your goal? Because one of the hostages is your sister, a character you've grown to love over the last 9 hours of the game. Now use the mechanics of the game to accomplish that goal.

Granted, a lot of games don't take that approach, but it's still one of several valid uses for story in games that has been used successfully in the past. It only enhances the gameplay experience without sacrificing it in any way.

 

[kyogen]

The player operates within the same set of rules that define the game system as a whole, including whatever simple or complex story it happens to employ. He or she is not writing the story, but rather choosing a subset of available options. Players can certainly break stories, but when they manage to do so, they are also breaking a mechanical feature of the game. Furthermore, character arcs are not strictly necessary for good stories. Greek tragedy often highlights the absence of a character arc despite changing circumstances as the key to the tragedy itself.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Glad the article's author could join us

What's really the most important thing in a good story? Character arcs. The transitions characters make as the story progresses.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. Odysseus is a good counterexample - he's a largely static character, and the Odyssey is arguably one of the greatest works of fiction in human history. He doesn't really change much - he starts the story smart, sneaky, and arrogant, and ends the story smart sneaky and arrogant. This general lack of a character arc doesn't get in the audience's way of sympathizing with Odysseus and enjoying his story. Mythology in general is full of static characters, and many stories with a mythic "feel" to them - such as Tolkien - accomplish this in part through the use of static characters.

If you are saying that this player's decisions won't damage the fragile structure of a story, then you are saying that stories are very easy to write. They can be written by authors on the fly, for that is what a player is doing when he is making in-game decisions: he is writing the story.

So can you improvise a great story? I'd be impressed if you could improvise a mediocre one.

-Keith

Well, there is a game based on that concept, [http://sleepisdeath.net/] but most of the story-based games I've played can be better compared to The Garden of Forking Paths. Here's Salman Rushdie's opinion on the topic: http://bigthink.com/ideas/25129

Finally, Also, I think that we may be conflating "story" and "plot." Take Ernest Hemingway's shortest story:

For sale: baby shoes, never worn.

There isn't actually any plot there. It's a static but evocative picture, like a painting. But it's still a story. So even if a game has a minimal or under-emphasized plot, it can still be a good story in the way that Hemingway's story is a good story by being evocative. Earlier Metroid games are a good example of this, creating an atmosphere of isolation and uncanniness.

And games can enrich linear stories, as well. Take the interactive fiction Shade [http://iplayif.com/?story=http://parchment.toolness.com/if-archive/games/zcode/shade.z5.js] - it's basically a short story of the strange and disquieting Phillip K. Dick variety. I don't want to spoil it (seriously, everyone in this thread owes it to themselves to play it unspoiled) but a pivotal moment in the story relies on the protagonist, referred to as "you," taking actions that have unexpected consequences. The reason why this moment is effective is because you the player have in this game taken other actions which also have had consequences. This is not something that is possible to replicate in books or film, which is likely why the second-person narrative never got off the ground in those media.

Thank you for opening a very interesting discussion!

 

[Freechoice]

I think the major problem is that there aren't many people that understand how to write a compelling narrative that is determined by gameplay or vice versa.

You have standout gems like Bastion that have a really good mechanic to convey the story and a good story in and of itself, but it's still very linear. Contrast a non-linear game like Skyrim where the side quests and explorations faaaaaaar outweigh the emotional consequence of the main story.

Gamers don't help either. They either buy Modern Warfare 3000 in droves or unerringly praise games like Mass Effect 2 which, in my opinion, was one of the most railroading experiences I've ever had. Yes, I've played linear games, but most didn't have the pretentiousness to feign the illusion of choice as opposed to just having the real thing.

There was Commander Jane "Oh I'm so fucking clever" Shepard, standing in front of a projection of the Illusive Man. The options?

I don't appreciate you being so secretive.
I don't trust you, but I'll work with you.
Go fuck yourself.

At least DX:HR had the courtesy of just letting you punch people out whenever the hell you felt like it.

If we go by the loose definitions set by the author for story and gameplay, the way to make an expansive game is to think creatively when we describe what a sequence is. Do you remember how Fallout: New Vegas had side quests that would actively engage you against the NCR, Legion or both in between fetch quests and whatnot? If they had been done a bit better, they would have conveyed the significance of the conflict and how important the Second Battle of Hoover Dam was. I think the Legion quests had the most impact when push came to shove, but Caesar's storyline was a big turnoff because it was just evil and you were only ever a servant.