Shooter Stories-can they be better?

[Cobalt180]

Whether it's Halo, Call of Duty/Modern Warfare, Battlefield, or any other shooter, at some point do you ever think that you're just playing the same game? I used to be a die-hard Halo fan, I still love to keep up with it, but the most recent games left me with some bitter taste in my mouth. I've never been much of a Call of Duty fan in contrast to that, and I have to admit I've never played Battlefield; but what I want to ask is: do you ever get the feeling that you're just playing the same game?

I mean, Shooters as a genre are pretty standard at this point, you have a gun, maybe a knife, some health, and loads of ammo and things to shoot, it's all there, but I wonder why shooter stories are usually so contrived.

Look at Modern Warfare 3, the logical holes of a disgraced party leader ordering an army he has no official control over to invade ALL of Europe at once would leave Russia quite exposed to counter attack. Never mind that the Soviet symbol they use for anything Russian (on one map it's even on streetlamps) was officially retired over 20 years ago.

Halo has been interesting, in the early 2000's we thought that crash-landing on an alien ringworld was awesome, and it was new at the time, and the story was pretty solid, when Halo 2 came along, people said that switching between the Arbiter and Master Chief made the game confusing, but I happened to like that, as it provided more depth to the motives of each character.

As far as stories go, shooters have become almost identical, with action taking a higher priority than characterizing support NPC's or even -you-. It's odd to watch an NPC die when there's no character behind them. Miranda Keyes was always far from battle, giving orders, her death was pretty forgettable, Makarov was characterized as evil, and his death fils you with satisfaction for having beaten him, know what I mean?

 

[Inglorious891]

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland, the main focus of the developemnt is on the action, not the story. Halo is the only game out of the three that you mentioned that actually tried to have a decent story, and that one was, well, only decent. With the fanbases these games have, developers aren't going to try to create great stories when a majority of the fans that love the game don't care for a story. The main purpose of the story is just to tie all of the scenes together, and that's all it was required to do for these games.

Other shooters, however, that were based on having a story or at least tried are where you need to direct your attention to. Bulletstorm, Bioshock, GTA4, etc. are all shooters whose stories I greatly enojyed, and they were great because a focus of the game was the story/writing/characters.

Asking for a great story from Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo is like asking for a great story from Transformers or The Expendables; if big explosions are the main focus for the marketing, why would you try to tie a good story with it if action junkies are all you want? There just isn't any point.

 

[Zhukov]

*looks at Bioshock*

Yes, yes they can be better.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Well its not really fair to compare them to other genres like rpgs. Rpgs like to take their time and grind their storyline into your skull with hours upon hours of dialogue. Shooters are a shorter experience with more focus on the action(besides if your in the middle of a mission, it doesnt make much sense to stop and talk to sergent bob about his childhood years and what motivates him to be in this war.)

I personally think halo has a great story(cod not so much...) but its just that if you miss one line of dialogue you can lose track of the plot. If you pay attention, you dont really find yourself wondering whats going on. Same for gears.

 

[Javarock]

They can be better, The issue is that the company that are currently making them realized that they don't have to waste the effort time or money in order to make them better.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Look at Modern Warfare 3, the logical holes of a disgraced party leader ordering an army he has no official control over to invade ALL of Europe at once would leave Russia quite exposed to counter attack. Never mind that the Soviet symbol they use for anything Russian (on one map it's even on streetlamps) was officially retired over 20 years ago.

Not to nitpick, but the political landscape of MW3 is nothing like the real world one. In MW3, Russia is run by an Ultranationalist, very possibly Communist faction that hates the West. As for the map, it takes place in a very clearly overgrown and dilapitdated area. It being 20 years old is entierly possible.

Can shooter stories be good? Of course they can. The Modern Warfare series' story is actually pretty decent, if you are into Tom Clancy-style techno-thrillers. Gears of War has a pretty decent sci-fi story with a very good EU; ditto Halo. The problem with a lot of the critics towards FPS stories is that they are looking for something that isn't going to be there. Shooters are, first and foremost, about action and setpieces, with the story being only a vague justification for why the action and setpieces are happening. Its like looking for story in a fighting game. Some games go the extra mile and put a lot of work into their stories, but they will always be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Crazedc00k]

*looks at Bioshock*

Yes, yes they can be better.

Stole mine

 

[Vault101]

hate to repeat stuff but I havnt seen an equvalient of half life or Bioshock for a while..so yes definetly (I was hoing RAGE might do it for me...)

 

[mikey7339]

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland,

I really do not understand the criticism leveled at Halo's story. The original Halo had one of the best stories for any game I had seen in a long time. Humanity is in the midst of a struggle against a religiously fanatic enemy, bent on destroying them. In the midst of their war they stumble upon an ancient relic neither of them understand and in-turn unleash an ancient enemy that they can hardly hope to defeat. The relic turns out to be a force of both destruction and creation, akin to the Hindu Deity Shiva, only in a technological form. This relic turns out to be one of the only remnants of a galactic civilization that had thrived until they encountered the same enemy that the Humans and Covenant are now struggling against.

This is especially perplexing to me when people praise Half Life for its story. HL and HL2 had only the smallest scraps of story and plot elements to drive it along. An enemy with no character development uses a portal to enslave humanity and a silent protagonist saves the day. How many times has this been rehashed? But time and time again I see Halo ripped apart for what, to me, is an epic story while HL and HL2 get massive praise when all they did was take the basic story from Doom and made it about a scientist instead of a marine and aliens instead of demons.

 

[krazykidd]

*looks at Bioshock*

Yes, yes they can be better.

*looks at Bioshock*

Yes, yes they can be better.

Stole mine

The exception that proves the rule? Plus bioshock is quite old ( unless you mean the entire series ).

OT: they COULD but why would they ? They sell well enough as it is and i highly doubt it would sell better with a better story . That being said most people don't play shooters for in depth story , they play them for fast paced action. Plus they are good " pick-up-and-play" games . If You have a friend over you can just pop in the game and start shooting shit , that doesn't bode well with most other genres.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Wait a minute, you are starting from a bad place. The games you mention do have some great and emotional storypoints. That first nuke in COD MW that confused us all as we thought "I can't die, I'm the protagonist", or the Flood, whose introduction to Halo was so unnatural it was like they were invading the very game itself, and weren't supposed to be there.

The issue is with their sequels, because these games have no themes or higher thoughts to explore, they are running with that the popcorn-action entertainment style and relying on set-pieces to draw the audience in, and thus must repeatedly make the set-pieces more and more extreme to keep the audience entertained, leading to ridiculously impossible stunts happening for the sake of it.

It's exactly the same issue those popcorn action films have. Who remembers or relishes the plots of the Lethal Weapon sequels, or Die Hard, or Rambo? We remember the awesome action pieces (he crashed the car into the helicopter to kill the guy!) but the overall plot is simply a means of getting from one explosion to the next.

All the best stories have themes. They explore humanity: Our interactions with ourselves, others, and the environment, and a great story will create set-pieces that further that exploration of themes (like Bioshock, where

Spoiler

the dude makes you kill himself because he wants to show you how little control you have over yourself.)
The problem is that to do this you generally need a bit of exposition and thought, with a slowing of pace and good writer who can get his points across. A nuclear blast is much easier to code, and actually fits better to CODs gameplay style. Every film shouldn't be the English Patient, and every game shouldn't seek to be either.

 

[geekRAGE]

i dont want a story in a shooter, i just want my original quake back with monsters and levels and not realistic guns.

 

[Inglorious891]

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland,

I really do not understand the criticism leveled at Halo's story. The original Halo had one of the best stories for any game I had seen in a long time. Humanity is in the midst of a struggle against a religiously fanatic enemy, bent on destroying them. In the midst of their war they stumble upon an ancient relic neither of them understand and in-turn unleash an ancient enemy that they can hardly hope to defeat. The relic turns out to be a force of both destruction and creation, akin to the Hindu Deity Shiva, only in a technological form. This relic turns out to be one of the only remnants of a galactic civilization that had thrived until they encountered the same enemy that the Humans and Covenant are now struggling against.

This is especially perplexing to me when people praise Half Life for its story. HL and HL2 had only the smallest scraps of story and plot elements to drive it along. An enemy with no character development uses a portal to enslave humanity and a silent protagonist saves the day. How many times has this been rehashed? But time and time again I see Halo ripped apart for what, to me, is an epic story while HL and HL2 get massive praise when all they did was take the basic story from Doom and made it about a scientist instead of a marine and aliens instead of demons.

I never said Halo's story was bad, it's definetly better than anything Battlefield/Call of Duty could create, but I was never that big of a fan of the story or the series. If I took the time to actually get into the Halo lore I might change my mind, but for now I'm just not a real big fan.

 

[ultrachicken]

Shooters are usually about specially trained or simply ridiculously competent soldiers in a big war where the entire planet's at stake! However, beyond that, it's unfair to say that they're all identical. Does anyone really think Halo and Call of Duty have identical storylines? Even if you restrict the comparisons to those of the same storytelling genre, there are major differences. Halo is about humanity's struggle against an ancient, advanced, and extremely religious alien threat where the fate of the galaxy depends on seven artifacts of mass destruction, and the interplanetary hijinks of the Master Chief. Gears of War is about a gruff veteran fighting against a species from his own planet that was driven out of its home by humanity's use of the wonderfuel, "immulsion."

The overall quality of these shooters' stories could be a lot better, though. I think the biggest pitfall that most shooters face is that they don't focus on characters. They just say, "[Significantly large space]'s fate hangs in the balance!" Very little effort is put into making you really root for the protagonists. The game will probably display them performing heroic tasks, but either counter that by making them completely wooden, or by giving no other character traits whatsoever.

 

[ultrachicken]

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland,

I really do not understand the criticism leveled at Halo's story. The original Halo had one of the best stories for any game I had seen in a long time. Humanity is in the midst of a struggle against a religiously fanatic enemy, bent on destroying them. In the midst of their war they stumble upon an ancient relic neither of them understand and in-turn unleash an ancient enemy that they can hardly hope to defeat. The relic turns out to be a force of both destruction and creation, akin to the Hindu Deity Shiva, only in a technological form. This relic turns out to be one of the only remnants of a galactic civilization that had thrived until they encountered the same enemy that the Humans and Covenant are now struggling against.

This is especially perplexing to me when people praise Half Life for its story. HL and HL2 had only the smallest scraps of story and plot elements to drive it along. An enemy with no character development uses a portal to enslave humanity and a silent protagonist saves the day. How many times has this been rehashed? But time and time again I see Halo ripped apart for what, to me, is an epic story while HL and HL2 get massive praise when all they did was take the basic story from Doom and made it about a scientist instead of a marine and aliens instead of demons.

I never said Halo's story was bad, it's definetly better than anything Battlefield/Call of Duty could create, but I was never that big of a fan of the story or the series. If I took the time to actually get into the Halo lore I might change my mind, but for now I'm just not a real big fan.

Sorry to just jump in uninvited, but let's take a closer look at what IngloriousPony said about Halo.

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland,

Yes, you did call its story bad. And that concludes any input from me.

 

[TheSentinel]

y'all are trippin some heavy shit, except that one dude who gave a shoutout to STALKER but then he ruined it by implying that CoD has a good story so I don't even know what the fuck

 

[repeating integers]

Sorry to just jump in uninvited, but let's take a closer look at what IngloriousPony said about Halo.

Well of course the stories for Call of Duty/Battlefield/Halo are going to be generic and bland,

Yes, you did call its story bad. And that concludes any input from me.

What is this, the Inquisition? Dissecting everything he said to determine what he obviously really thinks? It could have just been poorly worded, you know.

This is especially perplexing to me when people praise Half Life for its story. HL and HL2 had only the smallest scraps of story and plot elements to drive it along. An enemy with no character development uses a portal to enslave humanity and a silent protagonist saves the day. How many times has this been rehashed? But time and time again I see Halo ripped apart for what, to me, is an epic story while HL and HL2 get massive praise when all they did was take the basic story from Doom and made it about a scientist instead of a marine and aliens instead of demons.

I was once mystified by this, too - but I think I get it now. Half-Life 2's story makes an impression on people because of the way it's told - mostly passively, through things like Doctor Breen's speech at the beginning of the game, the dialogue you get from talking to some of the random NPCs, and the environment itself. Everything contributed, everything mattered.