Game Storylines

Right Turn Clyde

I've just read an article from the January 2014 edition of Wire magazine. The author was commenting on the 'theology' of some gamers who believe that stories and games will one day successfully mix together, "despite all the evidence that they do not."

This got me thinking about my own attitude toward storylines. I actually haven't played games regularly for a long time, but I beat The Last of Us a few weeks ago and it got me really excited about gaming again, despite its derivative story. However, since then I've played a few titles and I've been unimpressed. The stories just seem to be very sub-standard. Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 are good examples. There's some interesting side quests in all of them, with some good voice acting here and there, but overall they're fairly poor. Their successes are in there various gameplay systems, not in their narratives.

I appreciate that games have moved away from the linear storytelling of stuff like Uncharted and Dead Space, and there's as much, if not more, things to do outside of the main quest in modern games. Nonetheless, I still find this hugely unsatisfactory. It was always like this, but I just wanted and expected games to have progressed in the few years that I've been away from them. Recently I've been playing indie stuff like Limbo and Titan Souls because I feel they offer a purer gaming experience. They're not as large and sophisticated, but they're almost entirely successful in what they set to to do. The big budget titles don't seem able to root their complex worlds in interesting stories, despite their huge efforts (GTAV is the most obvious exception).

I can tell by the activity around here that I'm in the minority, but does anyone else feel the same way?

Zillah

Most developers phone-in the storyline. There is nothing inherent to the medium that makes good storytelling impossible; they just don't approach it the way people do other mediums. Most games are made the way Hollywood makes action movies: tick enough boxes and don't do anything to rock the boat and you'll make money. You get people coming from a coding background, and naturally they focus on the code and the features and neglect to remember that story, pacing, character, motivation, etc, are crafts all of their own.

There is the occasional Planescape though, and I really wish more developers prioritised it.

Retr0gamer

It's nothing to do with the quality of the stories and more to do with how story is presented. Even something that is well written like the Last of Us presents its story in jarring cutscenes. the cinematic pretended of most developers means that the only way they can present their story is through cutscenes that dump the player out of the experience.

However it's not all bad, there's plenty of games that tell a story through gameplay or do so without interrupting the gameplay experience. Half Life and Super Metroid are two classic examples while there's plenty of indie games that do the same and some even excel in telling a compelling story, stuff like Gone Home or Papers Please. Dark souls has a deep story and lore but it never gets in the way of the game merely hinting at it unless the player actively looks into it for themselves. It's a good lesson in how leaving it up to the player to interpret is far more effective than spelling everything out for them.

In most games story is pretty perfunctory and I'd much rather most developers not try and create a something embarrassing story wise and just have something silly to tie the whole thing together but that doesn't get in the way of the game. They really need to concentrate more on actual enjoyable gameplay. As much as I enjoyed the Last of Us it was no where near my favourite game that year with Pikmin 3 and MG revengeance being better due to exceptionally good gameplay.

Cutscenes do have a place though, we wouldn't have games like Silent Hill 2 or Last of Us without them but they are a very unelegant solution. Last of Us actually uses cutscenes to disguise some exceptionally long load times which would be far more jarring than any cutscene. As long as it doesn't extebd into MGS4 territory were they ruin an otherwise average game with stupidly long cutscenes that are uninteresting and just plain idiotic then it's hard to have much of a problem with them.

Right Turn Clyde

Zillah wrote: »

Most developers phone-in the storyline. There is nothing inherent to the medium that makes good storytelling impossible; they just don't approach it the way people do other mediums. Most games are made the way Hollywood makes action movies: tick enough boxes and don't do anything to rock the boat and you'll make money. You get people coming from a coding background, and naturally they focus on the code and the features and neglect to remember that story, pacing, character, motivation, etc, are crafts all of their own.

One of the great successes of the Uncharted series was that they followed the Hollywood template, but they turned it into a positive by nailing the gameplay to good stories and excellent pacing. But as you say, most developers don't put in the effort and it's a shame.

I agree that there's nothing inherent in the medium that makes good storytelling impossible, but I do believe that certain game systems will always detract from a narrative. For example, looting and levelling up in stuff like The Witcher is totally at odds with good pacing. In fact, the idea of a narrative RPG is almost an absurdity. The ultimate battle between good and evil could be about to take place over the horizon, but the main protagonist is busy collecting flowers and searching through drawers for used linen. It's ridiculous when you think about it.

That's what I mean about certain games being purer (I realise how po-faced that sounds). They don't get bogged down in these types of problems because they're inherently simple. I love the scale and complexity of these massive modern games, but they're exposing fundamental problems with the medium as a narrative platform.

Right Turn Clyde

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the quality of the stories and more to do with how story is presented. Even something that is well written like the Last of Us presents its story in jarring cutscenes. the cinematic pretended of most developers means that the only way they can present their story is through cutscenes that dump the player out of the experience.

However it's not all bad, there's plenty of games that tell a story through gameplay or do so without interrupting the gameplay experience. Half Life and Super Metroid are two classic examples while there's plenty of indie games that do the same and some even excel in telling a compelling story, stuff like Gone Home or Papers Please. Dark souls has a deep story and lore but it never gets in the way of the game merely hinting at it unless the player actively looks into it for themselves. It's a good lesson in how leaving it up to the player to interpret is far more effective than spelling everything out for them.

In most games story is pretty perfunctory and I'd much rather most developers not try and create a something embarrassing story wise and just have something silly to tie the whole thing together but that doesn't get in the way of the game. They really need to concentrate more on actual enjoyable gameplay. As much as I enjoyed the Last of Us it was no where near my favourite game that year with Pikmin 3 and MG revengeance being better due to exceptionally good gameplay.

Cutscenes do have a place though, we wouldn't have games like Silent Hill 2 or Last of Us without them but they are a very unelegant solution. Last of Us actually uses cutscenes to disguise some exceptionally long load times which would be far more jarring than any cutscene. As long as it doesn't extebd into MGS4 territory were they ruin an otherwise average game with stupidly long cutscenes that are uninteresting and just plain idiotic then it's hard to have much of a problem with them.

That's very well argued. Wire also wrote about the 'inelegance of the cut-scene' recently, in relation to Uncharted 2. I think cut-scense are at their worst when they don't use the in-game engine. It destroys the immersion. Thankfully that seems to be falling rapidly out of fashion.

I thought some of the contextual, 'real-time' dialogue in The Last of Us done a good job of using the gameplay to to tell the story, but of course the heavy lifting was ultimately left to the cut-scenes.

As I say, I haven't been a regular gamer for a number of years now, so no doubt I've missed many fine examples of the medium.

johnny_ultimate

Too many games (and frankly gamers too) conflate 'story' with 'plot', as if they're one in the same. As far as I'd be concerned 'story' is actually a more all-encompassing concept - involving themes, social commentary, characterisation, delivery, audiovisual communication, even something like artful ambiguity. Don't get me wrong, plot is important for many works, but it's the deeper aspects that many games stumble with.

The story in many games is basically just a shedload of information i.e. "this is what happened". It's often delivered as tomes of impenetrable lore, stodgy exposition or indeed poorly directed cutscenes. For me anyway, that type of storytelling holds little interest, often about as engaging as sitting down and having a good old read of the dictionary. It builds a world but it doesn't engage with it. I'd throw pretty much every major RPG into this category (certainly all the ones in the OP), unless it's the rare breed with sufficiently intelligent, articulate writing full of character and wit.

I don't think cutscenes are inherently 'bad' TBH. There are extraordinary interactive storytellers who can communicate what they want within the game itself or even through mechanics (Valve, Lucas Pope, Simogo, Tale of Tales), I believe a clear degree of 'authorship' is necessary to communicate what the writer wants to say, and that sometimes means taking control away for a while. 'Linear', heavily authored storytelling is not something to be rejected or feared, because ultimately it's a good author that will be able to tell a story effectively ('multiple choice', player-driven storytelling is a difficult beast to tame, given how challenging it is to sufficiently achieve narrative consistency while handing thousands or millions of players their own agency - see the ending of Mass Effect 3). Many games are however limited by either poor direction or, more disappointingly, technical limitations. I'll take the ongoing Dreamfall Chapters as an example. It's a dialogue heavy game, and TBH it is a much smarter and more intriguing narrative than the vast majority of its contemporaries. Yet it's also limited by its delivery and frankly it's smaller budget. Conversation scenes, for example, are delivered without much animation, characters just standing still, making them a chore to endure even when what's being said is of interest. Yet having had a brief chat with the devs about it on Twitter, they fully acknowledged it, and said it's a matter of resources.

To compare it to The Last of Us, what made that game so special was the quality of the delivery. The cutscenes were snappy, coherently directed, full of energy (from both the characters and the virtual camera) - a world away from the barely tolerable, dreadfully paced messes that are the norm. Even within the game itself narrative events benefited from the strong graphics engine and crystal clear delivery. The acting was nuanced and believable, capably aided by the technology it needed. It may not be much above a competently made film, but that's a real rarity in games. Yet a bulk of developers do not enjoy anywhere near the financial and technological resources (or the creative ones) Naughty Dog have, and that's why a lot of the most interesting things being done by smaller developers are in more abstract and styilised spaces.

And yes, that's where many of the exciting things are happening - the independent scene, perhaps even an 'arthouse' one. That's where games are moving beyond mere 'plot' to create richer, more rewarding, more complex works. Games that are 'about something', with themes that are difficult, mysterious, skillfully elusive - that are present in what is not said as much as what is. I've just finished Sunset, which I can't praise highly enough, and it's a perfect example of that - a game that really pushes the limits of what we can and should expect from interactive storytelling, and utilising many of the tools available (from music to its evocative art direction). It's a game that trusts the player to read between the lines, negotiate meanings and readings that aren't 'red or blue' moral conflicts. Not every game will benefit from that approach - and, worth pointing out, a significant proportion of games would be better off not bothering with anything other than the barest bones storytelling as their strengths lie elsewhere - but it's an encouraging sign of things to come.

To bring it back to Dark Souls / Bloodborne, mentioned above, what makes that game's storytelling so memorable is the way it is communicated. It has the depth of 'lore' of many of those games I criticised above, but the difference is it reveals it in a radically different, subtle (too much so on occasion!) way. There are hints about how everything links together, but it requires the player to figure them out (well, maybe with the assistance of some intrepid online interpreters ). Ultimately it's more rewarding because how everything links up is translated through the mechanics, the level design, the game structure, the item descriptions. It's such a profoundly different way of communicating a story, far ahead of its time (and us as players in many ways!). It's that level of nuance and artfulness that defines the best prose or filmmaking, and it's a rewarding process seeing that seep through to gaming, however slowly.

Retr0gamer

To echo one point you make, codex like in bio ware games like mass effect can go to hell. They're a terrible way of universe buildings my especially when you see how elegantly something like Dark Souls does it even if you aren't actively trying to figure it out.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Too many games (and frankly gamers too) conflate 'story' with 'plot', as if they're one in the same. As far as I'd be concerned 'story' is actually a more all-encompassing concept - involving themes, social commentary, characterisation, delivery, audiovisual communication, even something like artful ambiguity. Don't get me wrong, plot is important for many works, but it's the deeper aspects that many games stumble with.

That's a very individual interpretation of the word 'story'. To me, story is what's on the surface, while themes and social commentary are what's beneath the surface. Those broader elements need to be interpreted, while the story or plot is a series of events that can be outlined with a certain degree of objectivity. I'm happy to conflate both words. I certainly agree with you that games struggle with those broader elements. The issue for me is that if a game doesn't have an interesting.. ahh… plot, then I'm outta there, regardless of what's beneath the surface. The same for film. Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar is a classic example of a film that's begging to be opened up and studied, but I could barely make it to the end because the story/plot was utterly tedious. That's a 95 minute film! What's the chances of me putting 40 hours into an RPG in the hope that something deeper will emerge from the sludge? No chance.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The story in many games is basically just a shedload of information i.e. "this is what happened". It's often delivered as tomes of impenetrable lore, stodgy exposition or indeed poorly directed cutscenes. For me anyway, that type of storytelling holds little interest, often about as engaging as sitting down and having a good old read of the dictionary. It builds a world but it doesn't engage with it. I'd throw pretty much every major RPG into this category (certainly all the ones in the OP)

That is exactly how I feel about those games, with one slight correction - I don't mind being told "this is what happened", as long as it's done well.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't think cutscenes are inherently 'bad' TBH.

Neither do I. I understand the 'inelegant' argument but I'm quite happy to sit through them as long as they're brief and aesthetically in line with the in-game graphics.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To compare it to The Last of Us, what made that game so special was the quality of the delivery. The cutscenes were snappy, coherently directed, full of energy (from both the characters and the virtual camera) - a world away from the barely tolerable, dreadfully paced messes that are the norm. Even within the game itself narrative events benefited from the strong graphics engine and crystal clear delivery. The acting was nuanced and believable, capably aided by the technology it needed.

I gave The Last of Us an honorary mention in the 'movies you've watched recently' thread because it was the first time that a game struck me as being truly cinematic, and I don't mean in the Hollywood sense of the word. I bought a PS4 on a whim a few months back and I picked up TLOU because there wasn't much else that interested me. I hadn't played a game through since Gears of War 2, so I was totally out of touch with games, save for the odd deathmatch here and there. So this game has been a blessing and a curse. A blessing in that I'm mad for games again, but a curse in that I'm still chasing that first buzz, unsuccessfully.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's where many of the exciting things are happening - the independent scene, perhaps even an 'arthouse' one. That's where games are moving beyond mere 'plot' to create richer, more rewarding, more complex works. Games that are 'about something', with themes that are difficult, mysterious, skillfully elusive - that are present in what is not said as much as what is.

The indie scene is certainly new to me. Even when I was into games years ago I always went after the box office titles. But I can feel that changing. I've read a number of your posts in recent months about various games of substance, and those are the types of games I want to try out. I do not care about trophies, levelling up or any of that stuff. I want to be moved by a game. I want to put down my controller and question something fundamental in my life. That's what happens with the cinema that I watch, and now I want that from videogames. I'm gad to hear that those games exist. Are they mostly PC at this stage? Is the indie scene more vibrant on that format?

Retr0gamer

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

That's a very individual interpretation of the word 'story'. To me, story is what's on the surface, while themes and social commentary are what's beneath the surface. Those broader elements need to be interpreted, while the story or plot is a series of events that can be outlined with a certain degree of objectivity. I'm happy to conflate both words. I certainly agree with you that games struggle with those broader elements. The issue for me is that if a game doesn't have an interesting.. ahh… plot, then I'm outta there, regardless of what's beneath the surface.

Well that's a real shame because you're discounting a huge number of games with no plot or a perfunctory plot but focus on gameplay. Stuff like Radiant Silvergun, Spelunky, Etrian Odyssey, FTL, hell even the mario games. Really plot just isn't important to those games because... Well they're videogames through and through. A certain level of plot is probably needed to give some games some context for moving forward like in a RPG or so,etching like Last of Us where the combat without context would become exceedingly dull but then there's stuff like the mario games, rogue likes or dungeon crawlers that can keep people entertained and enthralled for hours because the underlying gameplay is just that good.

tok9

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Cutscenes do have a place though, we wouldn't have games like Silent Hill 2 or Last of Us without them but they are a very unelegant solution. Last of Us actually uses cutscenes to disguise some exceptionally long load times which would be far more jarring than any cutscene.

I don't know how many times you've said this but I'm pretty sure I've corrected you at least once.

That is not true, you can skip the cutscenes pretty much immediately. I checked it before.

Retr0gamer

tok9 wrote: »

I don't know how many times you've said this but I'm pretty sure I've corrected you at least once.

That is not true, you can skip the cutscenes pretty much immediately. I checked it before.

Don't remember you correcting me before on it but what you said seems true since the technical director from Naughty Dog has said the same thing.

Right Turn Clyde

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well that's a real shame because you're discounting a huge number of games with no plot or a perfunctory plot but focus on gameplay. Stuff like Radiant Silvergun, Spelunky, Etrian Odyssey, FTL, hell even the mario games. Really plot just isn't important to those games because... Well they're videogames through and through. A certain level of plot is probably needed to give some games some context for moving forward like in a RPG or so,etching like Last of Us where the combat without context would become exceedingly dull but then there's stuff like the mario games, rogue likes or dungeon crawlers that can keep people entertained and enthralled for hours because the underlying gameplay is just that good.

We're actually in agreement here. I said earlier that I've taken to playing games like Limbo and Titan Souls. Well Limbo is effectively plotless and Titan Souls is as stripped down as you can get. They're the perfect antidote to some of the overblown RPGs that I've played recently. So don't get me wrong, I'm happy playing games without a plot. However, when the game is plot heavy, or steeped in backstory or 'lore', then I'll want those elements to work well and be engaging.

And then of course there's those genres that don't need a story at all. Fighting and racing games don't require plots, although I know that some people enjoy the story modes. In fact, I can't think of a better example of a videogame than Street Fighter IV because it it so simple, and yet almost endlessly complex in its various systems. It's a perfect representation of the medium.

Retr0gamer

I think too much lore can do the exact opposite. The vast codices in the likes of the Bioeare games entirely pointless and really add nothing to the experience. A far more skilled storyteller would imply these details through environmental or incidental details leaving the players imagination to fill in the blanks. It's not like nobody could enjoy Star Wars less without the backstory of the founding of mos eisley. Many RPGs do far better universe building than Bioware games with a fraction of the writing.

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think too much lore can do the exact opposite. The vast codices in the likes of the Bioeare games entirely pointless and really add nothing to the experience. A far more skilled storyteller would imply these details through environmental or incidental details leaving the players imagination to fill in the blanks. It's not like nobody could enjoy Star Wars less without the backstory of the founding of mos eisley. Many RPGs do far better universe building than Bioware games with a fraction of the writing.

Personally liked the Mass effect codex, but that was more to do with the fact they were voiced. Generally hate going into a menu and seeing a bunch of "new" items that I tend to just go thought to get rid of the notification.