Poll: Being told the story vs. Making the story

[Valenza]

So lately I've been interested in just what makes gaming a unique medium; the often advertised freedom of choice and non-linear gameplay and storytelling. Most games see fit to include some aspect of 'freedom' in the way one can progress. Of course, said freedom is pretty illusionary. With narrative seemingly comes a guiding hand, either subtle or overt.

But people also like to be told stories, and there have been some brilliant games that give the player no option to shape the way it turns out. To that end, is it better to be told the story, or to make it? Games are a great medium to convey story through interactivity, but in your own opinion, where is the most ideal place to draw the line between the story and the player's ability to influence it?

I've included a poll, though I'm not asking you to choose between the two, because I'm sure we all love options. I'm simply curious as to the amount of involvement people prefer when playing games. I'm much more interested in seeing opinions than statistics. I'd say that a more open experience is better as it is what makes gaming truly unique as a medium, though developers have to be careful with implementing the illusion of freedom.

Captcha: "higgledy-piggledy"

 

[skywolfblue]

I don't want to be a writer, I play games to be involved in someone else's story and world and be swept up in it.

To that end I generally prefer Linear (Half Life 2), or Linear with a few key choices (Mass Effect).

 

[malestrithe]

Linear, but with a little wiggle room. At all times, I want to know where the next part of the story is, but I also want to do side quests when available. I have never been a fan of Western RPGs that did that. Sacred II being the worst offender. I never knew where the next part of the story actually is unless I trip over it.

Also, I prefer using someone else's creations and not make one up out of whole cloth. I know that I'm supposed to feel something because I designed my character to look that way, but I never do. I play something that does not feel like he belongs in that world.

 

[zehydra]

Open, branched-out story telling. Linear story often kills the idea that the world I'm being a part of is in a sense, "alive". I don't want to be placed inside a story; I want to be placed inside a world.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Depends on the game. But I think that Chris Avellone has a very good point on this one in most cases:

You can pull a character through a story by having events unfold around them, or you can make it clear that events are happening because of what the player did - and *specifically* what the player did. Part of the fun of a world and a story is how your presence is causing changes in it, seeing those changes play out, and being made aware exactly how you caused those changes. Being an agent of change, the spark lighting the fuse, or the butterfly wings that spark the hurricane on the other side of the world is pretty gratifying. It's much different than the player being passively subjected to a changing story they are having no effect on - or if it's obvious the events that are changing have nothing to do with their actions.

This is probably putting me out of a job, but it's what I believe and what I've noticed from both computer game GM'ing and pen-and-paper gamemastering: Special casing reactivity I've found is generally a waste of time compared to giving the player a series of game mechanics and encounters and see what happens. This is an example I've used before, but as a narrative designer, I can't compete a player's story about how their dwarf fighter with 3 hit points exploited a crack in the canyon terrain and the limited range of motion of orcish axes to lure 20 orcs to their death one by one. Simple, but that's a legend being made right there. Once you add reputation systems, faction systems, and more, and the range of player-made stories increases without narrative designers having to do much work at all.

 

[Denamic]

In terms of storytelling, linearity reigns supreme.
It all boils down to the game in the end.
One of my favourite games in terms of narrative is Dark Souls.
No one tells you anything, yet the world explains itself to you as you play, revealing an intricate story should you care to pay attention.
I love it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I like both.
But in both cases the mechanic behind it should be masked, if I start noticing that I'm on a corridor run, that I've hit a story dead zone, or that my choices were meaningless then someone didn't do their shit properly.
And once the game starts rubbing me the wrong way it will quickly become a glaring problem.

I would name names normally but this could very well end in a flame war.

 

[bauke67]

Linear, because open never seems quite open enough.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I like both.
But in both cases the mechanic behind it should be masked, if I start noticing that I'm on a corridor run, that I've hit a story dead zone, or that my choices were meaningless then someone didn't do their shit properly.
And once the game starts rubbing me the wrong way it will quickly become a glaring problem.

I would name names normally but this could very well end in a flame war.

Pretty much this. This is why I enjoy games like Skyrim, the early Final Fantasies, Wild ARMs and the Mana series. Oh, and LUNAR and LUNAR 2, loved these as well.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Believe it or not, I don't think how much the story actually changes is what's important so much as it is important for the player to feel like their choices matter without breaking the flow of the game. Traditionally, there are two ways that this can be taken.

The authored approach would find some way of getting the player from point A to point B. If the player does what they're told, they'll get a nice story. If they don't, the entire illusion will fall apart. Further more, if the player doesn't like something that happens that they should be able to change through gameplay mechanics, it would make the player actively angry at the game.

The ludic approach would be simply making a whole bunch of places for the player to go, thereby removing any problems with conflicts between what the player wants their characters to do and what the story requires the character to do. The only problem with this approach is that it either makes the entire world very obviously revolve around the player actions and ruin pacing. Worse yet, since the player actively wants the best outcome, they'll generally shy away from a number of decisions that give rise to interesting conflict.

Some games have bridged the gap between these two. They'll give the player a definite point A and point B, but have many ways to bridge them. This has work marvelously in games like the original fallout or deus ex. he only problem with it is that, from a design perspective, it wastes a ton of resources on things that will only be seen in certain circumstances.

One method that pen and paper RPG players should be familiar with, but seems to be oddly absent from games is schrodinger's railroad. It actually has several different names, but it has one basic premise: Players go from from point A to point B. However, instead of forcing them to go someplace, the player simply goes somewhere and that somewhere just so happens to be point A. If a person is in town, where ever they go is the place that they find the irate customer. That irate customer will ask them for help. If the player helps the irate customer, it just so happens to piss off a group. If the irate customer isn't helped, it just so happens to piss off some group. That pissed off group always get angry at the player. Thus, a conflict has seemingly been formed by player actions, but it was predestined to occur. Of course, it would live or die based on it's presentation.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

This is difficult... Most of my favourite games are non linear or branching but I actually think that makes for worse storytelling.

I think the problem is in non linear story telling you actually have to put some effort into how the story will work because of all the new problems that come from non linearity.
Whereas linear games don't need to put in half as much effort to get the same level of quality.

This is why games like BF3 and MW3 have terrible single player campaigns.
While games like Mass Effect are praised for storytelling, even though there's alot that could be done so much better.

 

[AngleWyrm]

So lately I've been interested in just what makes gaming a unique medium; the often advertised freedom of choice and non-linear gameplay and storytelling. Most games see fit to include some aspect of 'freedom' in the way one can progress. Of course, said freedom is pretty illusionary.

First, this topic usually comes up in FPS/RPG games that are little more than movies to begin with. That class of game seems to be popular according to xfire and steam, and heavily promoted in virtually every gaming publication.

Second, free will is an illusion, a trick of the conscience. It comes from the idea that I could have chosen a different avenue. Which is false. The person and experiences that made you who you were at the time defined your choice.

What games can offer us is an insanely mystifying ability to time travel back to a saved game state and progress down another branch of a tree with new knowledge. Which is an astonishing fantasy fulfillment. Surprisingly, very few games actually do this.

 

[Manji187]

Funny thing is that all freedom and choice is essentially illusory (no such thing as true freedom and choice in a limited/ constrained virtual environment) and all games, no matter how open/ branched out are fundamentally linear (beginning, middle, end; at least with the main quest/ storyline).

Personally, I don't mind a game that leads me by the hand, as long as the story is good/ engaging/ believable.

 

[Richardplex]

I don't which way the story is told, as long as the story being told is highly immersive. It comes to whether I think I'm the better story teller, or the game writers are. It varies from game to game.

 

[AngleWyrm]

Games being reduced to the interactive storytelling genre?
Click to continue is not fun for me.

 

[thePyro_13]

I far prefer a well designed plot, with good characters and plot twists.

The farther away you get from this the weaker the story feels to the player.

It's sad the the very first step away from a solid plot most games make is removing the protagonist, replacing it with a player designed nobody with little room for development or plot twisting.

 

[AngleWyrm]

Interesting. Have you ever wondered what it would be like to review a game such as chess or checkers?

 

[Yopaz]

Linear. I don't have much patience with games that seem to be determined to hide the story from me. I want to have a set starting point and a set ending although their could be some parts that aren't set in stone, but that's not something I would demand.

 

[Jordi]

I like both, if properly executed. I think a large part of the charm of gaming is being able to exercise control over the story of your character. And you have that in every game, even linear ones. Because the story and decisions of your character are not just the things that the game puts in writing or dialogue. It is every decision that is made and every event that happens. Remember that time when [insert player character] killed two enemies with his last shotgun round? Or when she robbed an entire town without getting caught? Or when he ran over twenty streetwalkers and evaded the police, SWAT and the FBI?

Games (unfortunately) don't usually record these events or really respond to them in other parts of the story, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of the main character's life story and that I won't remember it.

One method that pen and paper RPG players should be familiar with, but seems to be oddly absent from games is schrodinger's railroad. It actually has several different names, but it has one basic premise: Players go from from point A to point B. However, instead of forcing them to go someplace, the player simply goes somewhere and that somewhere just so happens to be point A. If a person is in town, where ever they go is the place that they find the irate customer. That irate customer will ask them for help. If the player helps the irate customer, it just so happens to piss off a group. If the irate customer isn't helped, it just so happens to piss off some group. That pissed off group always get angry at the player. Thus, a conflict has seemingly been formed by player actions, but it was predestined to occur. Of course, it would live or die based on it's presentation.

You make a lot of good points, but I think that video games are at a bit of a disadvantage here. Making players feel they cause change rather than actually letting them cause it and Schrödinger's railroad work marvelously if you only play (that part of) the game once. In tabletop games, the players can't replay a section, but in video games they will do that all the time. And when they reload their game (perhaps to see a different outcome), they will immediately see that their choice actually didn't matter, and the illusion will be shattered.