Stories in games, an argument against Yahtzee

[BloodSquirrel]

That's a paradox.

EDIT:
Perhaps I should add that I don't believe there is such a thing as a casual game. Sure, one might play a casual game of -insert title here-, but that doesn't make the title itself a casual game by nature.

But then I also think that the term "casual gamer" is horrendously misused, being applied to people simply because they don't have as much experience with games, or because they don't have as much time for them.

You can't really be a hardcore gamer if you don't have very much time for games.

I think the larger problem is "casual gamer" being used as an insult, which makes people go through mental gymnastics to justify why they or a game they like isn't casual.

Not faking being an intellectual... I am serious about this.

I just wish people would elaborate on what they mean by "gameplay". Because telling me "the gameplay in this game sucks" doesn't tell me a damn thing. I ask them to explain exactly what they mean by "gameplay" or which part of the "gameplay" was especially bad and they say gameplay is playing the game and playing the game was bad.

Its frustrating, that's all.

Don't blame one person not being able to explain their opinion on a perfectly good word. If somebody can't explain what about the gameplay was bad, then not having the word 'gameplay' around isn't going to suddenly grant them the ability to articulate their opinion. You would just get comments like "The story was decent, but the rest of the game sucks."

Meanwhile, not every reference to a game's gameplay need be fully expanded. Requiring somebody to use more words to describe something that can be summed up as 'gameplay' when a full write-up of how the game plays is unnecessary distracts from the writer's point.

 

[Mr Orange]

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.

You want someone telling you your own opinions? That is honestly what I'm drawing from what you're saying.

When somebody reviews something, they are evaluating their experience with the product. Note "their", not "your". Nobody is the same, so nobody will have the exact same experience.

Nobody is unbiased either, which is why the reviewer's opinions are always going to come into it - no matter how hard they try to be objective - because they are telling you about their experiences.

 

[FungTheDestroy]

Stories in some stories are badly placed, because they take a shallow and repetitive experience that most people should have been done with within the first 5 hours, and make it mandatory to stick around two to three times that much in order to gain "full value". (Good Examples, BioShock, Uncharted 2, any Final Fantasy)

Now the OP is a perfect example of the biggest problem with story in both the consumer, and the developer's mind. The two are treated separately, and ultimately a story is shoe horned into a gameplay mechanic after it has already been set in stone. The biggest flaw to this is pointed out by the OP as well; the intention of a game and story are also separate. According to the OP, all gamers and game makers have one goal in mind for the video game: To be FUN. Then how does it make sense to put in a story of human suffering and the end of the world? It doesn't make sense, but it works because it reaches and tickles your emotions in two entirely different directions.
One moment you'll be mourning the loss of a "loved one", but the next you can be giddy with joy from gaining a stronger weapon, or raising a level. It's schizophrenic, stupid, and everyone loves it.

The problem isn't that the story has to be good, or that gameplay has to be more important. The problem is they are almost never in context of each other, and that nobody cares.

There are a series of great articles on this, many of which I have stolen ideas from, and many of which are on this site. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/997/997376p1.html is the starting point, and within this article are links to others.

My assertion, quite simply, is that an excellent story is all well and good but if I have to suffer (because of poor gameplay) I almost certainly won't see it through to the end. On the other hand, if a game has a terrible story (or no story) but enjoyable mechanics I generally am willing to carry on playing to the end.

What if the game's story was about human suffering? Why would it make sense for the game to be fun?

Can you differentiate between poor design, and design choices?

Question to everyone, not just the quoted. Quoted is more of an example and context to what I'm saying.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past "reviewing for the everyman". You seem to be basing your arguments around the idea that Yahtzee is a legitimate critic and not an entertainer. I'm sure his reviews are useful to some gamers, but you can't expect him to be as impartial or "fair" as other critics, because that's simply not what he does.

In short, he's not really reviewing games so much as he is picking out the ones he doesn't like (or the ones the Escapist picks for him) and tearing them to shreds regardless of whether they're quality games or not.

 

[JediMB]

You can't really be a hardcore gamer if you don't have very much time for games.

Yes, you can. Being dedicated to gaming as a hobby doesn't mean that it must always take priority over other things.

 

[mattiboi24]

I would argue that every game has a story. Sure, there are different degrees, but it's always there.

First, you have games with concrete stories which are integral to the flow of the game, such as Metal Gear Solid. In that case, the game is practically a movie with interactive cutscenes.

Then you move onto the "semi" sand-box games like Jak II/III and GTA, where you have complete control, but still, everything you do is adding to the story in some way, and often you need to do story missions to unlock new areas.

Moving on, you have "true" sand-box games, like, Fallout 3 or Morrowind/Oblivion, where you can chose to do the story but it's always just an option, while you can go out and have a full experience without following the main story line the game creators thought up.

Then you move onto the games where the story is there, but it takes a huge backseat to the action, which is clear in pretty much every fighting game you've ever played (I'm thinking the Soul Caliber series in particular) but is also inherent in games like Pac Man or Dr.Mario. There's a story there, you have a motivation however small or seemingly meaningless. Pac Man has to eat, and Dr.Mario has to kill the viruses because, er.. well, they don't really say why; I guess it's just implied that they're ugly and laughing all snide and stuff, so they must be bad.

Finally, you have games with stories that you make up yourself. This may be seen as a game with no story, the notable example that's been brought up is Civilization, but as has been said, the reason the game is fun is because the story is left up to the player. Chess is never just knocking people over. You have two Kings facing off on the field of battle. The story is there, you just need to look for it. I mean, even Checkers is the same idea, just dumbed down even more. When you make it to the other side, you get "Kinged" and all that's left is to sweep up the opposing armies which don't realize that a new King has taken the throne and they're fighting for a lost cause. Civilization is the best example though, because every time you play, just like a "Chose Your Own Adventure" book, you're making the story through your actions. It's still a fully functional story, its just completely in your hands.

That was fun! Hope somebody cares enough to read it. -_^

 

[TransMando]

I love a good story and a good character struggle, though I do judge a game success based on its ability to balance Story and Gameplay.

The gameplay elements are what essentially separates a game from a movie. Games have the potential to be better story tellers then movies because the player is directly involved AND we have at least 6 hours to experience the game rather then the two or so you get to experience a movie.

Games should extend beyond the story and dive into the world of the story because they ultimately has the time to spend their.

 

[RatRace123]

I've thought about this, and I agree with Yahtzee on story and presentation being important for games. I think I've actually got this down to somewhat of a formula:


In order to be a perfect game- you need equal parts great story and gameplay (Batman AA seems to be the most recent choice for this, if reviewers are to be believed)

In order to be a great game- you need an excellent story, that can overshadow some faults on the gameplay side, (Mass Effect and KotOR both fall in to this category, as much as I love ME, and I really really love ME, the combat was pretty generic but the story and presentation were phenominal)

In order to be a good game- you need good gameplay, and either a cliche or overused story (I guess Mario can fit into this category, but usually the gameplay is so awsome that it actually reverses the "great game" category)

In order to be a bad game- In this day and age you need to be generic in everything in order to be considered bad. It's strange how "middle of the road" has suddenly become "bad" in today's market.

And in order to be a horrible game- you just need to suck.

(Some games can be debateable, but this how I feel it generally works.)

 

[BloodSquirrel]

You want someone telling you your own opinions? That is honestly what I'm drawing from what you're saying.

Then you need to investigate the meaning of the phrase "is likely to be".

Playing the 'reading incomprehension' game, I conclude from your post that you're saying that the reason not to buy a game that a reviewer pans is because the reviewer didn't like it, not because you won't like it.

Yes, you can. Being dedicated to gaming as a hobby doesn't mean that it must always take priority over other things.

Actually, 'dedication' does mean that you're willing to give it priority over other things. You can just throw around words like that without paying attention to what they mean. Unless you're willing to rob the word 'hardcore' of all meaning, it must have some standards attached to it, such as it taking priority over other activities.

 

[JediMB]

Actually, 'dedication' does mean that you're willing to give it priority over other things. You can just throw around words like that without paying attention to what they mean. Unless you're willing to rob the word 'hardcore' of all meaning, it must have some standards attached to it, such as it taking priority over other activities.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation here:

You have a job that comes with a great deal of overtime and responsibilities.

You also have a family, including a young child and a baby that needs being taken care of.

Your duties leave you with, maybe, an hour to play video games every other weekday, and another two hours on Saturdays. This is not a lot for most self-appointed hardcore gamers, but you relish every minute you get to spend with your hobby, and never miss a window.

That's dedication, even if you might actually spend less time with the games than other people who might be considered "casual" gamers. Letting your duties take priority over your entertainment is not a lack of dedication.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I'll give you a hypothetical situation here:

You have a job that comes with a great deal of overtime and responsibilities.

You also have a family, including a young child and a baby that needs being taken care of.

Your duties leave you with, maybe, an hour to play video games every other weekday, and another two hours on Saturdays. This is not a lot for most self-appointed hardcore gamers, but you relish every minute you get to spend with your hobby, and never miss a window.

That's dedication, even if you might actually spend less time with the games than other people who might be considered "casual" gamers. Letting your duties take priority over your entertainment is not a lack of dedication.

Yes, it is a lack of dedication to gaming. The meaning of word isn't going to change just because somebody who only spends an hour a week gaming still wants to be called 'hardcore'.

You seem to have this bizarre idea that being able to consider yourself a hardcore gamer is some kind of right. It isn't. If you only spend a few hours a week gaming because you are too busy taking care of your family, then you are dedicated to your family, not to gaming, like a responsible adult should be.

 

[JediMB]

You seem to have this bizarre idea that being able to consider yourself a hardcore gamer is some kind of right.

You seem to have this bizarre idea that the "title" of hardcore gamer actually means something.

To be dedicated is to be devoted; loyal; conscientious, and it is perfectly possible to be all three even if more important things hold higher priority.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

You seem to have this bizarre idea that being able to consider yourself a hardcore gamer is some kind of right.

You seem to have this bizarre idea that the "title" of hardcore gamer actually means something.

It does mean something. Words are funny like that. They even have this book called a 'dictionary' that lists those meanings. I'm not being sarcastic here- you genuinely seem to have trouble understanding this concept.

On the other hand, you are the one who seems to think that the title is important enough to treat it as a basic human right.

To be dedicated is to be devoted; loyal; conscientious, and it is perfectly possible to be all three even if more important things hold higher priority.

Conscientious? Seriously, go buy a dictionary. Getting within a 500 mile radius of the definition of a word is not as good as using it properly.

 

[TelHybrid]

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. A good story (or rather a good story in combination with good gameplay) is what makes the game great. It makes you want to play the game that much more - and enjoy it a whole lot more. So yeah, story is not essential for a good game - but it's pretty important for a great game.

So basically 90% of all driving games aren't memorable then.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Yahtzee stops reviewing for the everyman, and instead puts his own personal preferences

.....DUH!!! That's part of the reason he's so outrageous lol

and he's a critic they always put forward their own opinion

 

[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. A good story (or rather a good story in combination with good gameplay) is what makes the game great. It makes you want to play the game that much more - and enjoy it a whole lot more. So yeah, story is not essential for a good game - but it's pretty important for a great game.

So basically 90% of all driving games aren't memorable then.

Nope. Unless of course the gameplay was so spectacular, or the game is old. But you did say 90%, so like I said - nope.But then again, 90%of al games are pretty not memorable.

 

[bradley348]

HOW DARE YOU ARGUE AGAINST YAHTZEE!

you better hope the AI director doesnt strike you down with the horde of many tanks

 

[TelHybrid]

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. A good story (or rather a good story in combination with good gameplay) is what makes the game great. It makes you want to play the game that much more - and enjoy it a whole lot more. So yeah, story is not essential for a good game - but it's pretty important for a great game.

So basically 90% of all driving games aren't memorable then.

Nope. Unless of course the gameplay was so spectacular, or the game is old. But you did say 90%, so like I said - nope.But then again, 90%of al games are pretty not memorable.

Hmm I personally found a fair few racing games to be rather memorable. Mario Kart 64 for example. A game beloved and remembered by many. The Gran Turismo series as well, really helped pioneer the whole driving simulation genre of racing games.

Wipeout 2097 as well, partially for its soundtrack though.

I just can't bring myself to agree with the idea that a game needs a storyline to be memorable. In some cases it just is an annoyance to some games that don't need one, like Unreal Tournament 3.

 

[Sentient6]

-snip-

Well, it is a matter of taste, as well, I suppose. For me, I enjoy a game much more if it has a great story to go along with a good gameplay.