Storytelling In Video Games

[The Lunatic]

Is Storyline really that important?

A relatively simple question, but, has rather interesting condemnations to think about.

Storytelling in video games is presented in a rather unique way, no other medium can quite match the freedom the viewer/player/reader has when playing a video game and the key behind this is simply that video games can be interacted with, the user can alter the story (Some in smaller ways than others) by simple going right instead of left.

However, this freedom does create issues with stories in games, more often than not, it's hard to have a set path for the player without being too forced. Especially in the current video game climate wherein story-focused games tend to focus upon the player making their own story rather than having a firm path of where to go and what to do next.

Some games combine this quite nicely (I'm thinking of Bioware here.), where as others have a bit of a uncertain jumble.

Games like Skyrim, for example, have the player able to do anything at any stage, this may involve saving the world from a threat, however, if he's only done the first of the Companion's quests, the guards will remark as to how he's the one who fetches the mead. This rather breaks the smooth flow of story in a game, and instead, you have separate arcs that don't seem to affect each other yet are referenced, which creates a disjointed feeling, at least to myself anyway.

It seems in general, stories in games are rather hit and miss, especially if we look at the biggest selling games these days.

In the UK, sports games are are a rather big seller, seems to be a similar story in the US, albeit different sports. These games very rarely have an over arching story, tending to focus on statistics and overcoming an AI opponent rather than "Saving the world" or anything akin to that, assuming the player is purchasing them with any intention of playing the single player, games as we know have multiplayer elements, and these are very popular.

Likewise, Call of Duty and Battlefield, which have complete storylines of their own tend to be purchased for the intent of playing online. (Very rare have I heard, "I can't wait to see where MW3 takes the story!".) These games sell extremely well, as I assume we're all aware, and the main hook here seems to be the multiplayer.

Perhaps it's just me, but, one can't help but feel that, at least in terms of mainstream gaming, story takes a backseat, while there are a few exceptions, the presence of a story and it's importance seem to depend almost entirely upon the genre of the game. Multiplayer seems to be treated as a replacement for a gripping story and decent single player.

So, Escapist, how do you feel about story lines in games?

----------------------------------------------------------------

As to why I'm asking this, research for an essay I'm writing, points in the post aren't organized too well, I know, but, I'm interested to see what people respond with, thanks for reading.

 

[the spud]

Just because there are games out there that don't require a good story doesn't mean that no game requires a good story. Some people may enjoy games that focus on the "game" part of it, while others (like myself) prefer to have a strong narrative intertwined.

 

[Vegosiux]

Storylines aren't NECESSARY to the enjoyment of games.

BLASPHEMY!

I cannot enjoy a game if it doesn't have a good story; and good storytelling. So yes, storylines are damned well necessary.

Just goes to show this is all subjective.

 

[Tr3mbl3Tr3mbl3]

There's a difference between storytelling and narrative. Story or plot aren't necessarily the most important aspects of a game but they combine with characters, environments and music to create the game's narrative. Part of the evolution of games in the last few generations involved
involved creating more cohesive narrative. I can't think of a single example of a game in the last five years that's regarded as great for the simple fact that it's fun to play. Even Minecraft has a unified and charming art style despite not leveraging any of the gameplay on it.

 

[jthwilliams]

From what I understand of game design you could argue that all but the most simple games have some kind of story. The story telling may be through the situtions the present to you and the status your character has compared to the world around you. It doesn't necessarily have to be cut scenes and blocks of text.

So, I would say while a Story isn't always necessary it is needed if you want to give your game any type of depth, but don't feel trapped into thinking you need to have cut scenes and dialoge. You can tell your story simply by putting a uniform on your character and making the environment style.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, the concept of branching narratives is a lot older than video games. Borges' Garden of Forking Paths predicts this sort of narrative, and choose-your-own-adventure books work like primitive text adventure games.

But more re: your question, I don't feel like games are doing enough in terms of storytelling. The picaresque style of storytelling in particular is one that I don't feel that games plumb enough - especially because it fits incredibly well into the way that games tend to be structured. There's also what I feel is an under-utilization of techniques like frame narrative.

 

[skywolfblue]

Storylines aren't NECESSARY to the enjoyment of games. Hell, Ninja Gaiden, Vanquish, Bayonetta are all held on my list of favorite games, and the stories to them amount to 'run around different places killing shit' (don't get me started on Bayonetta, that plot made absolutely no sense).

BUT I find that a game with a really cohesive and emotionally hitting story is way more memorable and ironically, enjoyable. The Darkness is my favorite example to use.

I agree with that. Story isn't really needed to provide fun.

However, I do think that Story is one of the three pillars (Aesthetic and Gameplay being the others) of making any good game. If you have a terrible story, you better damn well have extremely flawless gameplay to make up for that.

I think Story will create a longer lasting impact on your audience. Popcorn style games come and go, but a compelling narrative will stick with you for the rest of your life. That's particularly important if a company is going to make sequels, a first game with a great story is the best way to get people hooked and get more people to buy the second game.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Since you can go anywhere and do anything the game allows you to do then you probably think the story reveals itself through analysis of your environment and your actions impacting them. Writers and programmers are willing to go so far and then call it a day when needed.

Granted, a game doesn't typically lend itself to openness like this but at least you can have a story without having to say anything and let them discover it on their own.

I wonder how Journey will turn out... if only I had a PS3.

 

[The Abhorrent]

Storytelling in games is actually somewhat a bit of a new territory when it comes to entertainment; the standard conventions of storytelling go out the window when the player is effectively both the audience and the storyteller. There's an Extra Credits episode [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-role-of-the-player] dedicated to this topic, and many other episodes do discuss the nature of narratives in games (among many other topics); if you haven't seen them already, they're definitely worth checking out. But as a quick warning, if this is for a paper to be handed in.... I wouldn't count on Extra Credits being considered a "scholarly source", which could be a requirement for said paper.

The most obvious byproducts of this development is that many games have relatively poor pacing (story-driven ones which still offer a high degree of choice and/or non-linearity, so pretty much any Bioware title, are pretty blatant examples of such) and a strong tendency for player-characters to be borderline "Mary Sues" [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue] within the context of the storyline (though many do get away with it by placing themselves as justified escapist characters [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EscapistCharacter]).

When you think about it, both of these are traits of novice or amateur writers; normally better writing can (and to an extent, does) improve with time and practice, but there's not exactly a lot of established concepts to go on when it comes to writing for games specifically. The foundation for how to create good writing in an interactive medium are still being searched for, and in many cases it's clear there's still a long way to go; it's still in the experimental stages, as it were.

The games which tend to have the best and most coherent narratives in games are those which lean towards being the most cinematic. Linear & story-driven Japanese RPGs tend to be the best examples of such, notably the (older titles of the) Final Fantasy series. The linearity allows for stronger pacing that non-linear games don't, not to mention there's often a hearty dose of cutscenes in these titles (which further lends itself to the more established & traditional theories of what makes for good storytelling). Sometimes, these games are labelled "interactive movies", and for good reason; they aren't always the best at being a game specifically, but they're still some of the best for telling a story.

---

Away from what games do poorly for the story, there are some things which only games can do. These too still need some refining, but the medium presents quite a few opportunities to actually work out ideas which books & film could only dream of; most prominent of which is...

Immersion & Atmosphere

Because games are interactive, they have the chance to involve the player in the setting and storyline far more than any other medium. Atmosphere and immersion usually go hand-in-hand, with the former allowing the latter to occur. As for what "Atmosphere" really is, it's when the game starts to somehow give the impression of actually being within the setting; the feeling of isolation the Metroid series is known for is a prominent example of this. And because you feel you're in the setting, immersion can set in; you can start to forget you're playing a game, you're just lost in the world and loving every minute of it.

Immersion can be broken by many things, with loading screens and glitches being the worst offenders. This is why games in The Elder Scrolls series (including Skyrim) take some effort from the player to be immersive, while many other games accomplish it without the player even realizing it; in fact, they shouldn't realize it.

Anyhow, one of the best parts of narratives in games is that while they're not the best for explicit storytelling.... they're unmatched when it comes to implicit storytelling. Simple stories can work out great in games, more complex narratives can get bogged down in the issues inherent to the medium; given time, perhaps the issues games have for more explicit storytelling could be solved. More implicit stories, such as discovering the history or timeline of events which have already happened while you explore ruins, work out incredibly well in games.

Games have a lot of potential, but they aren't without their problems in the storytelling department.

 

[Fidelias]

Storylines aren't NECESSARY to the enjoyment of games. Hell, Ninja Gaiden, Vanquish, Bayonetta are all held on my list of favorite games, and the stories to them amount to 'run around different places killing shit' (don't get me started on Bayonetta, that plot made absolutely no sense).

BUT I find that a game with a really cohesive and emotionally hitting story is way more memorable and ironically, enjoyable. The Darkness is my favorite example to use.

THIS! This, so much this!

Basically it comes down to the type of game, and what you want in a game. I absolutely love interesting and compelling characters and storylines, with dramatic changes that take you on an emotional rollercoaster (and make me cry like a 13 year old girl) but sometimes I just want to shoot stuff.

If I feel like getting into a story, I'll play a Persona game, or Mass Effect, or Kotor. (Also, The Darkness, as Kman already mentioned. Best loading screens in any game I've played.)

But sometimes I want to just kill things in Halo, or chainsaw some horde in Gears of War.

Nothing is necessary in games, but some things can add to the experience.

 

[Lightslei]

The only game I can think of that doesn't have a hyper forced story and isn't "MAKE EVERYTHING UP" would be Dragon Quest 8, haven't played 9.

But I mean most of the Final Fantasy games lately have been pretty damn linear forcing a story, and if you're going to tell a story, you need to make sure, it makes sense for the world that you set it in.

 

[poodlenoodles]

i like story, unless it's just stupid. it's awesome if the story is great, and even if there's not a lot of story cause i just make my own up, but if the story is stupid it kills the experience for me.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

It's important in story driven games.

 

[Ragnarok185]

Final Fantasy games have great stories.(except FFVII). other than that they are pretty much an interactive movie(which is awesome, a good break from most of these games coming out these days)

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I don't think stories are necessary for EVERY game, I mean just look at Pac Man or Minecraft. But I do think games can be a great way to tell stories, and in ways that no other form of storytelling can.

 

[TheDooD]

There's a strong need for structure for games that are trying to convey a story of some kind. At the very same time that structure should allow freedoms yet keep in the player's mind that they have to progress yet at their own pace.

 

[Vault101]

I prefer games with a story

not all games must have a story..its merely preference

 

[Weentastic]

A game needs a strong point, and if the gameplay isn't constantly entertaining you and providing a reason for playing the game, then it better have an engaging story. Sim City doesn't have a storyline, but it constantly provokes the player to take new and interesting actions, and kept them thinking the entire time, while rewarding them for moving forward. Morrowind didn't have the most mind blowing action, but had a story and a universe with more depth than most book series, and it allowed one to investigate that universe in a very interactive manner.

I think the point that a lot of developers miss is to have their priorities straight when they create a game. They should figure out what they want their players to get out of the experience. Some players at some times want to be shown a nice action movie, and we get something like Modern Warfare. Other players at other times want to relax by being told a story, and be able to investigate that story themselves. Games provide a variety of ways to investigate a story, take a look at MYST, Morrowind, or Final Fantasy. Obviously they have game elements involved, but those game elements are meant to serve the player engaging with the story in an interesting manner, rather than just simply occupying them.

Of course games can do both, but I think when there is a serious compromise between the gameplay and story we get games that leave players with a lukewarm feeling. Developers need to go all the way with something in the game, otherwise it feels unpolished.

 

[Duskflamer]

A game shouldn't HAVE to have a deep story to it, and I think a lot of poor storytelling in the medium comes from some assumption that a story has to be there. If the story IS going to be there, make sure that it doesn't feel like playing a movie, it should still feel like a game and not a series of plot events that you need to enter button combinations to access. If I just want a good story, I'll read a book or watch a movie.