Stories in games, an argument against Yahtzee

[More Fun To Compute]

It has become more clear to me over time that a lot of people who buy these new fangled electronic entertainment products don't actually care much for games at all and don't really know how to enjoy them or talk about them. Instead they want games to be something like movies or art or something else like what those well groomed and wry critics talk about on the telly.

I guess that not everybody is interested in very abstract games that have efficient and well developed rules like Chess or Poker and want more story content. Except, lots of people through history are hugely interested in that sort of game so that argument doesn't really hold water. I get tired of arguments from people saying how games need to have stories to take them to the next level when all the lessons from history say the opposite. To be hugely successful and stand the test of time, games need to lose story and become more like abstract but understandable rule systems. Historically, stories and other forms of fluff add novelty but are more often there to mask an unoriginal or bad game design than take the game to the next level in terms of quality.

Stories transform games from amusing little diversions into something far more compelling.

The opposite also applies. Stories can transform games from compelling experiences with near universal appeal to amusements that are mainly brief diversions for a jaded minority.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Then let's put in the fact that Yahtzee is more of a comedian than a reviewer. He's well aware that he's very subjective. You shouldn't go to him if you want a good review, but you can go to him if you want a funny one. I wouldn't say that any of his reviews have enlightened me to buy a game, unless it's one he really likes, which is a rare case.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yes, we all know Yahtzee loves good stories in his games, and most tend to agree. Some of the greatest games I've ever played have had great narratives. But on the subject of stories being as important to gameplay, I feel like Yahtzee stops reviewing for the everyman, and instead puts his own personal preferences, which people can disagree with without being stupid, in the way of general opinion. To make it easier to read, the following discourse can be read in a few points.

Point 1: Story is great. Great stories make for compelling gameplay. It is unlikely that a game will ever be on your top ten list without some degree of coherent and interesting tale behind it. Half life 2, Bioshock, stuff like that. Many see these as film-esque games and the epitome of what gaming is capable of doing, and I definitely agree. The best games do have good story, BUT, this is not essential to have a good game.

Point 2: Games do not need story: The point that the story is just as essential as gameplay strikes me as not well thought out. It is important to note that video games are much like other forms of activity, such as board games, or sports, in that they provide a steadily increasing challenge in a format of structured rules and boundaries, which provide fun and entertainment. Based on the idea that story is just as important gameplay, that equates a game with no story to only being 50% of a game. For most people, 50% counts as an F, so in this case we can call that a failed game. Looking at games such as chess, I do not get the impression that chess would be incredibly augmented by story, nor that chess fails because it has none. And yes, chess is a video game, you can play it on your computer. Becoming a bit more modern, games like Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, and Civilization, none of which have any significant degree of story, can be excellent games if one cares to play them. Tightly focused and well tuned gameplay drives many exceptional games without the use of story, but it shouldn't be noted that these games, along with many others, offer no real attempt to give you coherent story.

Point 3: Why games with bad story fail: Turning completely around, I want to make the case that games with bad story fail, and heres why; It depends on what the game is trying to accomplish. Games have goals, and the degree to which it succeeds at these goals when delivered to a player makes or breaks it. If the goal of your game is to deliver a challenging puzzle adventure with a clever narrative, and portal is the result, then well done, you've succeeded in every way possible. However, if you attempt to do so again and you get, say mirrors edge, then you've essentially tried and failed to incorporate story as a significant element of your game. Everyone has their own personal preferences about games, but that doesn't make the other person's preference bad. It is all about what makes a game FUN for you. For some, thats a clever story with coherent gameplay, that drives you to complete and master it. For others, its perfected gameplay with a complete absence of story, cause they don't care, and never will, about non-real characters on a screen. You can still have bad versions of each, and I think what Yahtzee, and many others are getting at is games that attempt to do both, and don't particularly succeed in either area, creating a bland half hearted result.

Point 4: Gameplay is still more important: Ask yourself, would you play a game consisting only of gameplay, and no story? Most people would, or have in some form, assuming it does the gameplay aspect well. Now take the inverse, would you play a game that has next to no competent gameplay and fantastic story? Probably not, though i know some will digress. That is for movies, people, not games. I cannot prove this, but I get the impression that people will always weigh gameplay over story, so in short, gameplay and story are not equal. Important both are, but one carries more weight.

Cheers, hope this doesn't offend anyone.

Nice read but do not take Yahtzee seriously as he doesn't review games he critizies them and even still for comedic value although they can be taken a little seriously with a grain of salt.

 

[The Real Sandman]

Well, games that have no story and are just gameplay-focused tend to be pretty unmemorable. Yeah, they may be fun (if executed properly), but eventually you move on and forget about them.

Pong, Pac Man, Space Invaders, Centipede, Donkey Kong, Defender, Frogger, Galaga, Dig Dug, 1942, R-Type, and Tetris would like to disagree.

Dude, how long ago those game were made? Seriously, it's like saying telegraph is awesomer then the iPhone because it was in use for a longer time. Games evolve, standards change, and what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today.

Except Tetris, that one does rock.

I don't recall ever saying that (insert game from yester-year with no story here) is better than (insert modern game with epic story here). I was merely pointing out that your previously quoted statement was flawed. Those games mentioned before aren't just immortalized classics, people are still playing them even to this day. Yes, games evolve and standards change. But the perception of a game will ALWAYS boil down to whether if it's fun. Simply put, even games of today don't need a story to be fun or remembered, or have we all forgotten about Geometry Wars, Left 4 Dead, DDR, Guitar hero, Rock Band, Counter Strike, Peggle, and the numerous free ware and indie games that are created every day?

what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today

So let me get this straight. Strider 2 can't be a better game than Wet because it's 10 years older? That's like saying Transformers is better than Citizen Kane because Citizen Kane was made in the 40s.

 

[Sentient6]

Then let's put in the fact that Yahtzee is more of a comedian than a reviewer. He's well aware that he's very subjective. You shouldn't go to him if you want a good review, but you can go to him if you want a funny one. I wouldn't say that any of his reviews have enlightened me to buy a game, unless it's one he really likes, which is a rare case.

Well..... Yes, his reviews are obviously subjective and mostly are for laughs, BUT... He's not wrong. He doesn't blow every fault out of proportion, but those faults do exist. And, bottom line, he does say if the game is actually any fun to play. And a lot of "legitimate" (if you will) reviewers ofter miss the "is it fun to play" part.
So call me a fanboy, but I like his reviews.

 

[Byrn Stuff]

Well, games that have no story and are just gameplay-focused tend to be pretty unmemorable. Yeah, they may be fun (if executed properly), but eventually you move on and forget about them.

Pong, Pac Man, Space Invaders, Centipede, Donkey Kong, Defender, Frogger, Galaga, Dig Dug, 1942, R-Type, and Tetris would like to disagree.

Dude, how long ago those game were made? Seriously, it's like saying telegraph is awesomer then the iPhone because it was in use for a longer time. Games evolve, standards change, and what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today.

Except Tetris, that one does rock.

I don't recall ever saying that (insert game from yester-year with no story here) is better than (insert modern game with epic story here). I was merely pointing out that your previously quoted statement was flawed. Those games mentioned before aren't just immortalized classics, people are still playing them even to this day. Yes, games evolve and standards change. But the perception of a game will ALWAYS boil down to whether if it's fun. Simply put, even games of today don't need a story to be fun or remembered, or have we all forgotten about Geometry Wars, Left 4 Dead, DDR, Guitar hero, Rock Band, Counter Strike, Peggle, and the numerous free ware and indie games that are created every day?

what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today

So let me get this straight. Strider 2 can't be a better game than Wet because it's 10 years older? That's like saying Transformers is better than Citizen Kane because Citizen Kane was made in the 40s.

I agree that it's certainly not required in order to be enjoyed, but the addition of an exceptional story elevates the game to a unified whole. The games you mention are all great games; however, any game that attempts to include a story and fumbles the attempt gives a somewhat lackluster impression of itself. If it's going to be done, do it skillfully. Games may begin as a story or as a concept, and while the concept and execution are certainly the most critical aspect, the need for a good story cannot be ignored.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Not by the industry definition of the term, no -

That's where you should have stopped.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PersonalDictionary

 

[Mr Orange]

You're saying that he puts forward his own preferences? Of course he does, as do we all.

He says in his Mailbag Showdown video: "It's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective personal opinions."

"Games do not need story?" Maybe some don't, like chess or tetris or Counter-Strike: Source for example. But really, if you play those for more than an hour at a time by yourself then there is something wrong.

Games that hold your interest do need a good story/sense of purpose. It doesn't matter whether the story is hackneyed as long as the experience as a whole is immersive, which is usually achieved through a good narrative and characters.

The only exception to these is where the gameplay is so fun that the lack of good story doesn't matter to you, like Painkiller or something. The story and other "arty" parts of games (like characters, motivation, etc.) can often make you completely forget about poor gameplay choices because you're so involved in the experience.

Basically, there are very few situations where a lack of story is not a bad thing and, in my opinion all the great games have had a good story, whether it's one that has been carefully crafted for you, like Half Life 2, or one that you craft yourself, like Oblivion.

 

[TotallyFake]

Point 4: Gameplay is still more important: Ask yourself, would you play a game consisting only of gameplay, and no story? Most people would, or have in some form, assuming it does the gameplay aspect well. Now take the inverse, would you play a game that has next to no competent gameplay and fantastic story? Probably not, though i know some will digress. That is for movies, people, not games. I cannot prove this, but I get the impression that people will always weigh gameplay over story, so in short, gameplay and story are not equal. Important both are, but one carries more weight.

Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, Metal Gear Solid pretty much. The Path. Story-focused games exist, and are good. And not one of them would be workable as a film. But then again gameplay-focused games exist, and are good. Every arcade game style or every multiplayer shooter for example.

To crib from MovieBobs District 9/Up review: Action means more when people you care about are doing the fighting. When you know what they're fighting for.
The middle ground is the place to be. Look at Modern Warfare, Dragon Age, and the like, interweaving deep gameplay with emotionally charged storytelling.

In short, I agree with MOST of what you say, but I think you're being overly harsh on the needs of story.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

"Games do not need story?" Maybe some don't, like chess or tetris or Counter-Strike: Source for example. But really, if you play those for than an hour at a time by yourself then there is something wrong.

That's no worse as human behaviour than watching movies all day by yourself or locking yourself in and reading a long novel from cover to cover. Don't be such a judgemental Joseph.

 

[Byrn Stuff]

Games that hold your interest do need a good story/sense of purpose. It doesn't matter whether the story is hackneyed as long as the experience as a whole is immersive, which is usually achieved through a good narrative and characters.

The only exception to these is where the gameplay is so fun that the lack of good story doesn't matter to you, like Painkiller or something. The story and other "arty" parts of games (like characters, motivation, etc.) can often make you completely forget about poor gameplay choices because you're so involved in the experience.

Basically, there are very few situations where a lack of story is not a bad thing and, in my opinion all the great games have had a good story, whether it's one that has been carefully crafted for you, like Half Life 2, or one that you craft yourself, like Oblivion.

I like your take on the matter, especially in the case of other aspects of the game eclipsing the undeveloped story. I especially appreciate phrasing it as a "purpose" rather than a story. I'm completely immersed in the gameplay of Rez without ultimately questioning once going on other than descending into the core and fighting the computer's defenses in the mean time. It's not especially important other than understanding the following: why things look the way they do, why they're shooting at me, why I'm headed in this direction, and why there are distinct levels. I find myself filling in the gaps with some sort of Lawnmower Man-esque narrative.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

You're saying that he puts forward his own preferences? Of course he does, as do we all.

Yes, we do. Which is why one of us posting our opinions of a game does not qualify as a review.

The job of a reviewer isn't to tell you his opinion on a game- it's to tell you, to the best of his ability, what your opinion is likely to be on a game.

That's why you don't have people who don't like RPGs reviewing RPGs- their opinions are just as valid as people who do like RPGs, but they also make them ill-suited to judge whether somebody who does like RPGs will like the game.

No matter how much Yahtzee dislikes multiplayer, for example, it remains an important consideration for many people and can't simply be ignored.

 

[Sentient6]

Well, games that have no story and are just gameplay-focused tend to be pretty unmemorable. Yeah, they may be fun (if executed properly), but eventually you move on and forget about them.

Pong, Pac Man, Space Invaders, Centipede, Donkey Kong, Defender, Frogger, Galaga, Dig Dug, 1942, R-Type, and Tetris would like to disagree.

Dude, how long ago those game were made? Seriously, it's like saying telegraph is awesomer then the iPhone because it was in use for a longer time. Games evolve, standards change, and what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today.

Except Tetris, that one does rock.

I don't recall ever saying that (insert game from yester-year with no story here) is better than (insert modern game with epic story here). I was merely pointing out that your previously quoted statement was flawed. Those games mentioned before aren't just immortalized classics, people are still playing them even to this day. Yes, games evolve and standards change. But the perception of a game will ALWAYS boil down to whether if it's fun. Simply put, even games of today don't need a story to be fun or remembered, or have we all forgotten about Geometry Wars, Left 4 Dead, DDR, Guitar hero, Rock Band, Counter Strike, Peggle, and the numerous free ware and indie games that are created every day?

what once was a great game can't compete even with the mediocre games of today

So let me get this straight. Strider 2 can't be a better game than Wet because it's 10 years older? That's like saying Transformers is better than Citizen Kane because Citizen Kane was made in the 40s.

I think we have a different concept of what makes a good game "great". Especially if a game was great once - it will always will be remembered as great, even though if you make an identical game today, it won't even register in the industry. That's why it's hard to compare old and new games. Because gaming has changed tremendously (sp?) over the years. Much more then the movie industry - that's why it's a lot easier to compare Tramsformers and Citizen Cane.
And as far as the games you mentioned - they are all pretty simple, gameplay wise. And simple (but fun) gameplay doesn't require a complex story. It's hardly requiers a story at all. And you will still get a good game. But, if you want a complex game, memorable not just as "oh, yeah, that was fun", but something more, you can't go without the story. I was kinda wrong saying there are no memorable game with no story, butI mean memorable as somethign special, not just something fun to kill a few hours. Games like Max Payne, Mafia, CoD4 even - I still can't forget them, maily because of the deep plot.
PS You mentioned Wte - we are talking about good plots, right? I haven't played Wet, but it didn't make an impression of a particulary interesting game, story-wise. I know I mentioned "mediocre game of today" - that was my mistake.

 

[Agrael]

Well, I do agree to a certain extent.

Story isn't that important - but it is mandatory when you have a single-player option !

(P.S. pac-man etc. they don't count - fuckin' ancient games, good, but ancient)

So yes, I love a game with a great story, but I also love (example) MW2 multiplayer which has no story what so ever - but it is still freakin' awesome!

 

[DruSM157]

Because Yahtzee comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, then we cannot trust Yahtzee's reviews!

Just wait till I get going!

 

[malestrithe]

A good story in a video game is simple to comprehend and follow. God of War's story is really simple. You take Kratos, who in the real world would be put on trial for numerous accounts of genocide, through several locations, including Athens, Sewers, a desert and many areas inside a temple, so he can get a magical macguffin do he can save Athens. His ultimate goal, killing Ares, is ancillary to the main plot of the game. That motivation is really a subplot and that is taken care of in mostly back story.

There, a clean story that is easy to follow.

 

[Acidwell]

Story is most definitely as, if not more important than gameplay, that is why valve are releasing videos like: meet the "insert class here". It adds narrative to the game and draws people in, its also the reason why co-op games are growing in popularity at the moment, yes people want good multi-player gameplay but they also want story eg boarderland, l4d2.

You give the example of chess and a few other board games, as well as someone else giving the example of Pong, Pac Man, Space Invaders, Centipede and donkey kong. Those all come from a time when it wasn't possible to fit anything OTHER than gameplay and a few beeps for a soundtrack onto a cart. These games live on because they were all that was around back in the day and now nostalgia has kicked in and people hark back for a "simpler" type of game.

What you are trying to say is similar to saying that cave paintings are better than Renascence art. Yes they were around first and they are famous but they are not BETTER. What comes after improves on them and adds more immersion to them. It is the same with games and mainly in the form of story and graphics.

Finally have there have been hundreds of threads dedicated to "your favourite game ever" even in the few months i've been a member here and not once have any of the games mentioned come into the lists except as the odd joke.The majority of people don't rate chess or pac-man or even ut as highly as deus ex or half-life or even halo.
Tl:dr
Point 1: Yes it is important.

Point 2: Same arguement as the point above but worded differently so; It is important yes.

Point 3: Complete opposite point to the ones above so i guess i have to agree, however the second half of the point has nothing to do with the first part it just says everyone opinion is valid and i agree with that part too.

Point 4: I give you the example of the point and click adventure. Very little gameplay, literally just point and click at everything you see, but the story in every one of the classic games is why they are played.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

I also hate how his last review of Demon's Souls was riddled with inaccuracies and it was clear he played for about three hours. I was shaking my head trough the whole thing.

He keeps rambling on how it's too hard. Yes it's hard but I LIKE IT. You have to learn your battle patterns and each enemy's weakness. Each death is a learning experience. Best game this gen imo instead of all that overrated crap that Infinity Ward keep churning out.

Sorry but you just can't nitpick on a game that was designed to be difficult and unforgiving for being too difficult and unforgiving. If he played further than the first dungeon and then created a new game. He'd wonder what he thought was so hard about those parts.

Oh yeah and dodging varies depending on your class, and is a roll to the side, NOT a step backwards like he said. He clearly didn't even complete twenty five percent of the game, and can't even level up at that point. I know it's for comedy and it's his job to nitpick on stupid shit but man, people should stop taking it seriously. And he should at least play the game for more than a few hours.

And he said no save points? The game saves every time you gain experience, and after you get an item. Has he ever played Diablo, or any loot grabbing dungeon crawler? That's what happens there too. If you abort mid-mission, you have to start over, but keep everything you earned so far. And there are save points midlevel. Yet again, he's complaining because it's difficult.

It just proves Yahtzee played it for a few hours and it beat him and now he'd rather play those hand holding self-esteem raising games he "hates". That was the worst review from Yahtzee I've ever seen. His reviews usually have a point in with all that humour but this one was the worst representation of this game ever, full of contradictions and it was clear he didn't stick to your character style or level them - which he can't at his point in the game.

Yahtzee - Next time you call games these days too easy, make sure you don't call punishing and challenging games too hard.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

It has become more clear to me over time that a lot of people who buy these new fangled electronic entertainment products don't actually care much for games at all and don't really know how to enjoy them or talk about them. Instead they want games to be something like movies or art or something else like what those well groomed and wry critics talk about on the telly.

I guess that not everybody is interested in very abstract games that have efficient and well developed rules like Chess or Poker and want more story content. Except, lots of people through history are hugely interested in that sort of game so that argument doesn't really hold water. I get tired of arguments from people saying how games need to have stories to take them to the next level when all the lessons from history say the opposite. To be hugely successful and stand the test of time, games need to lose story and become more like abstract but understandable rule systems. Historically, stories and other forms of fluff add novelty but are more often there to mask an unoriginal or bad game design than take the game to the next level in terms of quality.

Stories transform games from amusing little diversions into something far more compelling.

The opposite also applies. Stories can transform games from compelling experiences with near universal appeal to amusements that are mainly brief diversions for a jaded minority.

If electronic gaming all aimed to create 'pure' games along the vein of poker or chess, the world would be a very boring place indeed. Originally video games were crude translations of real life gaming activities, then simple novelties, some of which turned out to be compelling by virtue of their mechanics as a form of 'pure' gaming, and good for them.

And then developers started crafting works that let the players immerse themselves in alternate realities. While you can hyper-focus on those titles to distill the underlying mechanics it might have in common with the more pure game games, and can probably rightly argue that by themselves those mechanics are not as fun as those found in simpler and purer games, you would be missing the forest for the trees!

Games without a narrative framework had bloody well be a lot of fun, because fun is literally all they have going for them. Films on the other hand do not have to be fun at all - they still have to be good of course, but the specific emotional responses a 'good' film trigger can run the gamut of emotions. Likewise, story-based games can do so much more than simply amuse the player - they let you go somewhere fantastical, have super-powers, overthrow the earth, save the galaxy, etc.

Team Fortress 2 lets you control a variety of whimsical cartoonishly rendered character classes, with deep underlying mechanics, to play a simple score-based competitive game with your fellow humans. Unless you have an exceptional imagination and construct elaborate narrative frameworks for everything you do, you will never feel like your character or experience any type of "escapism", for the same reasons picking up a hand of cards in poker does little to help me pretend I'm James Bond in Casino Royale.

This is why I want games with a story, even if all the game itself does to provide one is help me make one up myself - lasting universal appeal is all well and good but it hardly lets me battle ancient vampires in the World of Darkness, now does it?