Poll: Sweeping Storyline VS Personal Conflicts and Complex Characterization and Development?

[Reven]

Hello, I'm fairly new to the forums and this is the first time I've ever tried starting a topic.

Basically which would your preference be when playing a game? A large sweeping story arc, (of the variety of Dragon Age origins, or any other game in which the stakes are raised extremely high), in which the characters within the story range from ok, to fairly interesting, but do not go through any real change during the conflict.

Or a character focused story, though your actions do/may affect the world around you, there is no one big bad guy threatening everything and the conflict revolve on a much more personal level. Instead focusing on characterization of you and or your companions, (looking into the human condition, emotions, and so on) with two of my favorite examples of games that did this really will being Planescape: Torment (discovering yourself) and KOTOR 2 (discovering yourself again, but also contains my favorite and (imo) one of the most complex and deep characters in all of gaming, Kreia)

Now i know the best game in the world would/could have both of these elements, i wonder, which would you prefer and why? Personally i actually prefer the latter, because i find it can often give you a fresh perspective of the world, I also feel that sometimes, the most difficult struggles and tribulations that we might ever face, come through personal battles that we may have to overcome everyday.

Thoughts?

 

[Vault101]

whatever the developers intended, and whatever works

I dont think you need doomsday to have high stakes, you just need to care about what goes on

 

[Reven]

whatever the developers intended, and whatever works

I dont think you need doomsday to have high stakes, you just need to care about what goes on

I agree with that, i was just curious about what people felt was more entertaining or fun for them between those two options. For example, as you mentioned, stakes are raised when you actually are about what's going on, i have a few friends that care much more about events that might affect the grand scheme of things, and instead are bored to death with character development, and others that were basically the opposite.

What I'm interested in is why people might find one preferable and more engaging and the other.

 

[Vault101]

whatever the developers intended, and whatever works

I dont think you need doomsday to have high stakes, you just need to care about what goes on

I agree with that, i was just curious about what people felt was more entertaining or fun for them between those two options. For example, as you mentioned, stakes are raised when you actually are about what's going on, i have a few friends that care much more about events that might affect the grand scheme of things, and instead are bored to death with character development, and others that were basically the opposite.

What I'm interested in is why people might find one preferable and more engaging and the other.

I think "end of everything as we know it" can get overdone and therefore its not "big" anymore....

for games in particular I like the underdog feel...or to feel "small" in the grandscheme of things..the struggle can help with charachter attatchment

Like Fallout 3, Fallout NV also starts out like this, but soon changes as your charachter is given all the cards and has a huge effect on what goes on, I don't mind this

again it all depends on how its handles, bad story/charachters falls flat in whatever scale its done, I think its personal preference

 

[Fuhrlock]

A large sweeping story arc, (of the variety of Dragon Age origins, or any other game in which the stakes are raised extremely high), in which the characters within the story range from ok, to fairly interesting, but do not go through any real change during the conflict.

Not sure is DA:O is the best example, as sure the end goal and big bad are made pretty clear but the real appeal to the game is I find really drawn from your companions, how they react to situations, interact with one another and develop (a process you can have influence over). The story acts as more of a device to show off these characters (bioware does this alot) and when you have good characters to show off I really enjoy this method of telling the story.

In the end focusing on character vs storyline needs to be a comprimise based on what the writers are good at. You need to see enough of the characters to be involved and enough story to keep playing to see what happens next but how to balance those should be entirely based on how good the story/characters can written

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well ideally the dev can pull off both.
Preferably it should all hinge on an epic storyline and include believable characters, because that is why I turn to games, I'm in to slay dragons and save the day not deal with some emo motherfuckers sob story, you get plenty of those wankers out there in the real world.

 

[Savo]

Both have their place. Some companies like Bioware can pull off both, which is ideal. If you have to choose one, characters are the way to go. An epic quest isn't anything if you hate everybody with you. Star Ocean: The Last Hope is a great example of this: The game's story had potential, but the obnoxiousness of the cast consistently ruined its attempts at storytelling.

To contrast that example, I'm playing Final Fantasy XIII-2 and it astounds me how much the storyline has benefited from being reduced in scope. The focus on the characters in this game rather than taking a wild shot at being an epic for the ages like FF13 did has made the story a pleasure to watch unfold.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

I've been much less interested in individual characters and more interested in events at large in fictional works lately, so I'd go with sweeping storyline. From a narrative point of view I'm getting tired of the idea of a select few super-important individuals saving the day from the bad guy, I'm starting to find settings where individual characters are much less prominent more interesting.

Also I dunno if DA:O is a very good example of what you mentioned, it's kind of squarely in both departments. A lot of RTS's do the sort of sweeping plotline thing per your description pretty well, particularly World In Conflict and Company of Heroes.

 

[endtherapture]

A large sweeping story arc, (of the variety of Dragon Age origins, or any other game in which the stakes are raised extremely high), in which the characters within the story range from ok, to fairly interesting, but do not go through any real change during the conflict.

Not sure is DA:O is the best example, as sure the end goal and big bad are made pretty clear but the real appeal to the game is I find really drawn from your companions, how they react to situations, interact with one another and develop (a process you can have influence over). The story acts as more of a device to show off these characters (bioware does this alot) and when you have good characters to show off I really enjoy this method of telling the story.

In the end focusing on character vs storyline needs to be a comprimise based on what the writers are good at. You need to see enough of the characters to be involved and enough story to keep playing to see what happens next but how to balance those should be entirely based on how good the story/characters can written

Yeah DA:O is not the best example because there is actually a lot of character development there in the game - every character grows and changes throughout the story (apart from the Warden I suppose).

 

[Vault101]

Well ideally the dev can pull off both.
Preferably it should all hinge on an epic storyline and include believable characters, because that is why I turn to games, I'm in to slay dragons and save the day not deal with some emo motherfuckers sob story, you get plenty of those wankers out there in the real world.

I disagree

"great big save the world romp" isnt exactally a requirement of any story....take somthing like Kill Bill (because I think that would have worked great as a game) its big, flashy, but the bride isnt out to save the day...shes out for her very own reasons

or Uncharted...or the first Infamous

"emo motherfukers"...I really don't know what you mean by that, but I think games scales learn towards "big" because that allows for the PC to kill lots and lots of enemies...hence why its clear we arnt going to see the game version of "No country for old men" anytime soon

TBH I think this all has more to do with cliches then the scale of the story

 

[JesterRaiin]

Thoughts?

I guess it would be hard to find games that don't mix both ways - you're nearly always somewhat important to events and the rpg worlds are seldom happy places unthreatened by Armageddon of sorts, so it's an academic question i guess. :]

As for me, i'm a big fan of interesting characters and moral choices that define "heroes" over the course of story. Instead of yet another rip-off from Tolkien and alike give me a band of witty and colourful scoundrels and let me at the big world. I promise i'll have my fun. ;]

 

[Reven]

Yeah DA:O probably wasn't the best example lol, I couldn't think too many games right off the top of my head. Most people noted bioware as an example and i
m inclined to agree.

Thoughts?

I guess it would be hard to find games that don't mix both ways - you're nearly always somewhat important to events and the rpg worlds are seldom happy places unthreatened by Armageddon of sorts, so it's an academic question i guess. :]

As for me, i'm a big fan of interesting characters and moral choices that define "heroes" over the course of story. Instead of yet another rip-off from Tolkien and alike give me a band of witty and colourful scoundrels and let me at the big world. I promise i'll have my fun. ;]

I agree i prefer to see choices that define the "hero" and his friends, rather than uncontrollable events (though there are obvious exceptions when done well).

Well ideally the dev can pull off both.
Preferably it should all hinge on an epic storyline and include believable characters, because that is why I turn to games, I'm in to slay dragons and save the day not deal with some emo motherfuckers sob story, you get plenty of those wankers out there in the real world.

I disagree

"great big save the world romp" isnt exactally a requirement of any story....take somthing like Kill Bill (because I think that would have worked great as a game) its big, flashy, but the bride isnt out to save the day...shes out for her very own reasons

or Uncharted...or the first Infamous

"emo motherfukers"...I really don't know what you mean by that, but I think games scales learn towards "big" because that allows for the PC to kill lots and lots of enemies...hence why its clear we arnt going to see the game version of "No country for old men" anytime soon

TBH I think this all has more to do with cliches then the scale of the story

It does makes sense with that regard to make it large scale. I'm sure many players would not have too much fun if there were only a dozen enemies in the entire game, and if there were more in a small scale conflict one would start wondering where they were all coming from.

I'm actually trying to avoid cliches and so on, i think the reason these types feel like cliches is because most conflict can be boiled down to a few core components, and as a result it can appear quite vague and bland.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You loaded the question a bit with your examples, as Planescape Torment is a borderline revered CRPG.

This almost seems like a choice between black and white morality (a great evil threatens the world, noble heroes must rise up to stop it...Dragon Age, Mass Effect, the main storyline in Skyrim) and grey and grey morality (a dark and complex world in which heroes and villains are more ill defined...Planescape Torment, Witcher 2, the civil war storyline in Skyrim).

 

[Reven]

You loaded the question a bit with your examples, as Planescape Torment is a borderline revered CRPG.

This almost seems like a choice between black and white morality (a great evil threatens the world, noble heroes must rise up to stop it...Dragon Age, Mass Effect, the main storyline in Skyrim) and grey and grey morality (a dark and complex world in which heroes and villains are more ill defined...Planescape Torment, Witcher 2, the civil war storyline in Skyrim).

Yeah sorry that they aren't the best/fairest examples, i honestly have trouble of thinking of examples when i need to. I can see where such a comparison between good/evil versus the grey morality might be seen, and honestly it wasn't really my intention. I suppose for my example of a great storyline i could also say COD 4, which had a very intriguing overall story imo, choice within the story doesn't really have to be a requirement for either choice i think.

 

[Aircross]

Why not both?

You can have both!

A sweeping storyline that revolves around "Saving the World" while having personal conflicts and character development.

Damn hard to pull off, but if it is ever done...

 

[Shock and Awe]

For me it all depends on the kind of game. If its a RTS I obviously want a sweeping story. If its a RPG and even a Shooter I want something more character driven. Though I think even more it depends on my mood at the time; though I would always prefer having both....

 

[Smooth Operator]

I disagree

"great big save the world romp" isnt exactally a requirement of any story....take somthing like Kill Bill (because I think that would have worked great as a game) its big, flashy, but the bride isnt out to save the day...shes out for her very own reasons

or Uncharted...or the first Infamous

"emo motherfukers"...I really don't know what you mean by that, but I think games scales learn towards "big" because that allows for the PC to kill lots and lots of enemies...hence why its clear we arnt going to see the game version of "No country for old men" anytime soon

TBH I think this all has more to do with cliches then the scale of the story

Well it's not about saving the world, but needs to be an epic story, for me that is.
Uncharted, Infamous, Deus Ex, Baldur's Gate, Half Life, Portal, Bioshock, Dragon Age,... you are either discovering or going towards something epic, take that part out and I wouldn't care about these games at all.
And it was never about killing enemies, in games where there are options I always go non-lethal, killing enemies is usually just an easy way out for devs.

By "emo motherfukers" I mean characters dropping their sob story for the sake of being a drama queen, or we could just call it DA2, not one fucker had anything of significance to say they were just there to create some soppy social drama...
If I wanted that shit then I would just walk outside for a moment, no shortage of people out there ready to bore you to tears, and that shit is free hell some might even pay you for putting up with them.

But hey that's why they make everything from dating sims to world saving RPGs, we get plenty of choices.

 

[Vegosiux]

False dichotomy. Also I wish devs learned to differentiate between personal conflict and soap opera.

 

[Distance_warrior]

I think that character exploration and growth is more interesting but if the story focuses solely around the protagonist and his companions it gets dull with no sense of progression or drive. Its dull when the whole point of the game is to help yourself because half the time character flaws are caused by the character themselves so he will definitely need goals that can only be solved externally which are generally more interesting on a larger scale and can't center around he character because then it seems selfish of him and he becomes a lot less endearing.