Video Game Narratives

[Serebii]

Keep posts on topic and if you need to discuss something completely unrelated, please make a new thread for it...- Fierce_LiNk

 

I think that the story driven IPs that have been very popular on PS3 would beg to differ. I would also classify Mass Effect in with this because releasing it so late by comparison essentially means that it doesn't count.

 

In short, games aimed at an adult (not man-child) Western audience.

 

Well I'm of the belief that most story driven games would have been better released as movies. I played The Last of Us. Beautiful game, great story but mediocre-at-best gameplay. This seems to be an issue with games in general these days. Too much focus on graphics and narratives, and not as much on gameplay.

 

I don't know about you lot, but I play games to play games, and for it to be stopped for more than a minute for cutscenes and exposition frustrates me Work a way to incorporate it in the gameplay like Half-Life did, or do not have it at all.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Fierce_LiNk

[Ashley]

Well I'm of the belief that most story driven games would have been better released as movies. I played The Last of Us. Beautiful game, great story but mediocre-at-best gameplay. This seems to be an issue with games in general these days. Too much focus on graphics and narratives, and not as much on gameplay.

 

I don't know about you lot, but I play games to play games, and for it to be stopped for more than a minute for cutscenes and exposition frustrates me Work a way to incorporate it in the gameplay like Half-Life did, or do not have it at all.

 

I disagree. Story-driven games may not always work (in one person's opinion, let's not forget its all objective), but any title worth any semblance of salt will have been chosen to be video games because of the medium's unique abilities. Let's not forget, it's become cheaper and easier to make a movie than a big video game nowadays.

 

If we want to compare the movie and video game industry then remember that we're only in the third decade of the video game industry. Comparatively, by that point cinema had a few narrative-based films (The Kid, Birth of a Nation (as horrifically racist as that narrative was, The Jazz Singer) etc) but it was mostly still stunt work and trickery, derived out of its origins in theatre and vaudeville.

 

A good comparison would be to cinema just after the introduction of sound. Due to technical limitations, but the desire to appear "modern", films we're awful for a few years. It takes time to adjust to tech, and the tech in video games is in constant motion unlike the movie industry.

 

If you compare the narratives in games today compared to 30 years into films and we're in a much better position. Yes in part because they can 'borrow' aspects from movies, which may not work, but it's early days (and movies took aspects from theatre, vaudeville, books etc to learn). To say narrative-based gaming doesn't work, or shouldn't be attempted, is to shoot a baby for not being an adult. It would be like telling Buster Keaton to go back to the stage in 1916.

 

This period right now is an exciting one as video game makers are learning what aspects of film-making, literature etc work and what new aspects need to be introduced and created. We didn't get from A Trip to the Moon to Citizen Kane in as short a time, it took a large amount of people's time, energy and learning in order to get there. Part of that process is learning to find the balance between gameplay and narrative. We shouldn't be trying to give up on it, but embracing it.

 

And I'd be inclined to completely wipe out the 80's if we're talking about narrative gameplay. Sure, there was the odd game, but no more so than the odd film that you saw in a nickelodeon had any kind of narrative. But that's more of a side point.

 

 

And this "I play games to play games" thing? If you're just playing for pure gameplay then why bother going any further than Angry Birds or whatever the Facebook game du jour is? I don't like the games, but often the reason they're popular is because there are solid gameplay mechanics behind them. I'd say you do play games and expect them to be more than 'just games'.

 

 

 

This may not make sense, I'm tired.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Ashley

[Serebii]

I disagree. Story-driven games may not always work (in one person's opinion, let's not forget its all objective), but any title worth any semblance of salt will have been chosen to be video games because of the medium's unique abilities. Let's not forget, it's become cheaper and easier to make a movie than a big video game nowadays.

 

If we want to compare the movie and video game industry then remember that we're only in the third decade of the video game industry. Comparatively, by that point cinema had a few narrative-based films (The Kid, Birth of a Nation (as horrifically racist as that narrative was, The Jazz Singer) etc) but it was mostly still stunt work and trickery, derived out of its origins in theatre and vaudeville.

 

A good comparison would be to cinema just after the introduction of sound. Due to technical limitations, but the desire to appear "modern", films we're awful for a few years. It takes time to adjust to tech, and the tech in video games is in constant motion unlike the movie industry.

 

If you compare the narratives in games today compared to 30 years into films and we're in a much better position. Yes in part because they can 'borrow' aspects from movies, which may not work, but it's early days (and movies took aspects from theatre, vaudeville, books etc to learn). To say narrative-based gaming doesn't work, or shouldn't be attempted, is to shoot a baby for not being an adult. It would be like telling Buster Keaton to go back to the stage in 1916.

 

This period right now is an exciting one as video game makers are learning what aspects of film-making, literature etc work and what new aspects need to be introduced and created. We didn't get from A Trip to the Moon to Citizen Kane in as short a time, it took a large amount of people's time, energy and learning in order to get there. Part of that process is learning to find the balance between gameplay and narrative. We shouldn't be trying to give up on it, but embracing it.

 

And I'd be inclined to completely wipe out the 80's if we're talking about narrative gameplay. Sure, there was the odd game, but no more so than the odd film that you saw in a nickelodeon had any kind of narrative. But that's more of a side point.

 

 

And this "I play games to play games" thing? If you're just playing for pure gameplay then why bother going any further than Angry Birds or whatever the Facebook game du jour is? I don't like the games, but often the reason they're popular is because there are solid gameplay mechanics behind them. I'd say you do play games and expect them to be more than 'just games'.

 

 

 

This may not make sense, I'm tired.

I'm not saying that a narrative has no place in a game. I'm saying it shouldn't impede the gameplay in any way. Look at MGS4. It had cutscenes that exceeded half an hour. That's unacceptable.

 

The focus of a game should be the gameplay. A narrative is nice, but it shouldn't be the massive focus of it. This is why I love Nintendo. They go gameplay first, story second.

[Jamba]

Well I'm of the belief that most story driven games would have been better released as movies. I played The Last of Us. Beautiful game, great story but mediocre-at-best gameplay. This seems to be an issue with games in general these days. Too much focus on graphics and narratives, and not as much on gameplay.

 

I don't know about you lot, but I play games to play games, and for it to be stopped for more than a minute for cutscenes and exposition frustrates me Work a way to incorporate it in the gameplay like Half-Life did, or do not have it at all.

 

Stop being so selective in your examples. Just because Last of Us might be like that (for you). Mass Effect definitely isn't, Witcher isn't, WoW isn't. You can't simply go contrasting a point about the holes in the Wii U's line up because you're not interested.

 

On top of that the consumer doesn't care about your opinion and has was voting with it's money on keeping Last of Us top of the charts for 5 weeks running in the UK. Look at the bloody data and stop being so myopic.

 

game du jour

 

Seriously Ash? Surely you mean jeu du jour. This obviously makes you're entire post irrelevant.

[Ashley]

I'm not saying that a narrative has no place in a game. I'm saying it shouldn't impede the gameplay in any way. Look at MGS4. It had cutscenes that exceeded half an hour. That's unacceptable.

 

Unacceptable to you. Some would argue a black and white silent film is unacceptable nowadays, but as recent history has shown not everyone feels that way.

 

The fact MGS4 was well received (metacritic 94) suggests not everyone shares your view point.

 

Seriously Ash? Surely you mean jeu du jour. This obviously makes you're entire post irrelevant.

I'm too busy trying to remember German, I don't have time for French!

[Fierce_LiNk]

Keep posts on topic and if you need to discuss something completely unrelated, please make a new thread for it...

 

I'm not saying that a narrative has no place in a game. I'm saying it shouldn't impede the gameplay in any way. Look at MGS4. It had cutscenes that exceeded half an hour. That's unacceptable.

 

The focus of a game should be the gameplay. A narrative is nice, but it shouldn't be the massive focus of it. This is why I love Nintendo. They go gameplay first, story second.

 

I would actually put that as a negative. For me, this is why Skyward Sword was weaker than it should have been. The narrative was almost non-existent.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Fierce_LiNk
Automerged Doublepost

[Jonnas]

I'm too busy trying to remember German, I don't have time for French!

 

Game du jour is terrible German, too

 

My actual on-topic opinion on the matter will come later.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I disagree. Story-driven games may not always work (in one person's opinion, let's not forget its all objective), but any title worth any semblance of salt will have been chosen to be video games because of the medium's unique abilities. Let's not forget, it's become cheaper and easier to make a movie than a big video game nowadays.

 

If we want to compare the movie and video game industry then remember that we're only in the third decade of the video game industry. Comparatively, by that point cinema had a few narrative-based films (The Kid, Birth of a Nation (as horrifically racist as that narrative was, The Jazz Singer) etc) but it was mostly still stunt work and trickery, derived out of its origins in theatre and vaudeville.

 

A good comparison would be to cinema just after the introduction of sound. Due to technical limitations, but the desire to appear "modern", films we're awful for a few years. It takes time to adjust to tech, and the tech in video games is in constant motion unlike the movie industry.

 

If you compare the narratives in games today compared to 30 years into films and we're in a much better position. Yes in part because they can 'borrow' aspects from movies, which may not work, but it's early days (and movies took aspects from theatre, vaudeville, books etc to learn). To say narrative-based gaming doesn't work, or shouldn't be attempted, is to shoot a baby for not being an adult. It would be like telling Buster Keaton to go back to the stage in 1916.

 

This period right now is an exciting one as video game makers are learning what aspects of film-making, literature etc work and what new aspects need to be introduced and created. We didn't get from A Trip to the Moon to Citizen Kane in as short a time, it took a large amount of people's time, energy and learning in order to get there. Part of that process is learning to find the balance between gameplay and narrative. We shouldn't be trying to give up on it, but embracing it.

 

And I'd be inclined to completely wipe out the 80's if we're talking about narrative gameplay. Sure, there was the odd game, but no more so than the odd film that you saw in a nickelodeon had any kind of narrative. But that's more of a side point.

 

 

And this "I play games to play games" thing? If you're just playing for pure gameplay then why bother going any further than Angry Birds or whatever the Facebook game du jour is? I don't like the games, but often the reason they're popular is because there are solid gameplay mechanics behind them. I'd say you do play games and expect them to be more than 'just games'.

 

 

 

This may not make sense, I'm tired.

 

Pretty much the best thing you've ever written.

 

The bold bit is important. Developers are now able to create games with much greater graphical details, which can help the storyline. This reminds me a lot of Silent Hill: Shattered Memory on the Wii. You would zoom in and look at posters or certain things and it helped you create an idea of that environment.

 

That game was "cinematic" in a certain sense. It didn't have tons of explosions or witty-one liners, but it did things in a slightly different way. You would get voicemails. In Metroid Prime, you would find logs that fill in part of the back-story. All of these are interesting ways of telling stories. I'm all for games becoming more cinematic and for inventing stories of their own, because it will only lead to deeper experiences.

 

In a way, I wish Nintendo would do something other than "Oh shi-, Peach has been kidnapped again." They're missing a trick there.

[Happenstance]

Personally I loved a good story in a game and without it I have started to get bored when playing games. I enjoy working my way through a level and then having a cutscene as almost a reward for doing so.

 

I recently played "To the Moon" on the PC. Small game, very little gameplay but an amazing story and it was one of my favourite gaming experiences from this year.

 

Two of my favourite games Persona 4 and the Mass Effect trilogy have great stories and use them really well to have you connect with those characters and universes in a way that I never have before with other games.

 

As I said in the other thread, Nintendo games have started to feel a bit hollow for me. Following the same old things time and time again. They were fun when I was younger but I think progression is needed.

[Cube]

Some games have stories so good that the gameplay doesn't matter, games like Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, The Walking Dead. The gameplay is pretty much non-existent, but the interactivity helps a lot.

 

Then you have games with the perfect mix of amazing storytelling and top-notch gameplay: Mass Effect, Tomb Raider and The Last of Us spring to mind as pinnacles of both storytelling and gameplay (but for completely different reasons).

 

Not all games need a narrative, such as the like of Mario and Sonic. Just give it a vague plot and let the gameplay speak for itself. I don't care how many times Peach gets kidnapped and it doesn't need anything deeper.

 

I don't think we've tapped the potential of storytelling in games. One thing some developers have nailed is the attachment to characters that gaming can provide, creating great emotional connections.

[Hero-of-Time]

Some games have stories so good that the gameplay doesn't matter, games like Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, The Walking Dead. The gameplay is pretty much non-existent, but the interactivity helps a lot.

 

Two of my favourite games this generation right there. As you said, gameplay is very sparse in these games but the connection you get with the characters and how the story draws you in really drives the game forward.

 

I think there is room for a good story in platfomers though. Yeah, most of the Sonic games are trash when it comes to the storyline but platformers can be well written and very funny, which is where Ratchet and Clank come in. That series is pure platforming fun yet at the same time Insomniac managed to create great stories with hilarious hero characters that you care about, as well as the villains.

[dwarf]

I think it's ridiculous to impose your own expectations and preferences of games on the creative industry as a whole, it's bad enough imposing them on yourself. Of course I occasionally buy 'safe' games that I know to be mechanically solid and pleasing at the animal level, but more and more I play games to be surprised and entertained in ways I hadn't foreseen. Being the Pokemon fanatic that you are, I can understand why you wouldn't want to be surprised or challenged by anything, such experiences would probably leave you jaded. As a consumer you are a known quantity, and thank Christ there are others like you who're happy to lay down their cash for recoloured experiences, because that's what keeps the games business going. I tip my hat to you sir.

 

It's worth asking yourself though: why be so blinkered?

 

Look at MGS4. It had cutscenes that exceeded half an hour. That's unacceptable.

 

The focus of a game should be the gameplay. A narrative is nice, but it shouldn't be the massive focus of it. This is why I love Nintendo. They go gameplay first, story second.

 

There's opinion and then there's haughtily declaring every thought like it's gospel. You have a chip on your shoulder. The examples you mentioned are extremely selective. I actually agree with you on MGS4 but it's beside the point really, the difference is that I'd never dismiss that form of expression simply because it was done badly once or twice. Why limit that avenue of storytelling? I'm glad when developers take risks and then learn from their mistakes.

 

The 'Nintendo does gameplay' argument does my nut in. Very vanilla.

You're confusing the issues. What you mean to say is that you prefer Nintendo games.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Cutscene extending half an hour... Jesus. I find ones which near the ten minute mark are doing something wrong.

[Sheikah]

Anyone who has played Phoenix Wright knows that story games can not only work, they can be much more interesting and compelling than games with little / superficial stories.

[Serebii]

You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that narratives are bad. I'm saying that narratives at the expense of gameplay are bad

[Ganepark32]

You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that narratives are bad. I'm saying that narratives at the expense of gameplay are bad

 

I think a perfect example of that very point is the game Fragile Dreams on the Wii. Fantastic narrative, characters, world, etc. but that's clearly where all the time went during development and the actual gameplay stunk. Admittedly, I forgave the game for that because of how good the narrative was but it works as an example of why in certain games you need to strike that balance between narrative and gameplay because the medium is an interactive one and if you forget the latter, then the devs may as well have made a movie or something.

 

But I think in general, with games these days, developers are largely managing to strike that perfect balance between narratives and gameplay. As others have said, the Mass Effect games are pretty much a perfect balance of this, Uncharted does it as well (say what you will about the gameplay feeling automated or hollow or whatever. Again, loved the gameplay myself), the new Tomb Raider, Spec Ops: The Line (again you could say the gameplay was "basic" by TPS standards but it worked well in the context of the narrative), etc.

 

Obviously, there are still teething issues in some areas with regards to this balance but I think by and large, these will be ironed out within the next generation of consoles and we'll see a greater consensus of games mixing both factors perfectly.

 

There's still a place for games with minimal to no narrative. I'm not bothered about the story in a Mario or Sonic game or in a puzzle game (unless, of course, its trying to be like the old adventure games like Broken Swords or something) or what have you because I'll still happily play them. But I, and I'm sure others are the same, do like being able to detach from the real world and soak in the story, world and characters of a game and have an experience that can't be had through any other medium. There's a place for both of these sectors of games and hopefully always will be.

[Jonnas]

The keyword to videogame narrative is engagement. Keep the player engaged in the story, the world. Let him/her be a part of it.

 

There is no need to put the world's backstory into big texts when you can put a trivial, optional pieces of dialogue exposing it in a more natural way. If a character is frail, no need to say it: show what s/he does when push comes to shove.

 

Optional paths are also getting better and better done, nowadays, no longer being arbitrary choices, but stuff you actually choose to do during gameplay (Spec Ops: The Line does this, I hear. Valkyrie Profile for the DS also intertwines the moral paths into gameplay mechanics)

 

Point is: videogames have narrative possibilities that can't be achieved anywhere else, and doing otherwise is a misinterpretation of the entire medium.

 

Many games nowadays are written by people who don't get this, though. They write Hollywood-style, using cutscenes in set pieces, instead of letting the players play through them themselves.

 

Here's an example:

 

 

Now, I'm not the biggest DMC fan, and I haven't played this game properly, but... why can't we play through that? We could have a gameplay segment where we 1. Catch the Motorcycle; 2. Ride the motorcycle (avoiding falling debris); 3. Defeat the guys at the top. We could still have a cutscene with Dante posing and the bike exploding dramatically, as a reward for the cool stuff that you, the player, just accomplished.

But no, instead we sit while watching a 2-minute action movie.

 

I'm not the biggest God of War buff, either, but that series usually lets you play through the epic stuff, trickling small cutscenes throughout the game for exposition only (I know the first game even explained Kratos' backstory like this). It doesn't interrupt, and we can still have an idea of how brutal Kratos by sheer gameplay. And the player feels better because they get to experience action scenes in a way cutscenes never could. The player is engaged.

 

And this is just one disadvantage of writing disconnected cutscenes: games with pacifist characters murdering enemies by the dozens, horror games where enemies can be trivially dispatched, moral paths where the main character makes "good choices" in cutscenes but still pickpockets from everyone... A lot of videogame writers still don't know how to do it.

 

Thankfully, more and more developers are realising this. The medium is maturing, though at a slower pace than I think it should.

 

In a way, I wish Nintendo would do something other than "Oh shi-, Peach has been kidnapped again." They're missing a trick there.

 

Your argument loses strength when you use Mario as the example Why not Zelda? You mentioned the posters in Silent Hill, and I think Zelda still does that with their NPCs with love lives and such (not to the extent of Majora's Mask, but still).

This, assuming you mean only Nintendo EAD.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Jonnas

[Cube]

I'm currently playing Max Payne 3 and the narrative is surprisingly good. When I started it seemed like the game was all action (the gameplay is super fun and absolutely amazing, so it wasn't an issue) with a basic plot. Then the story gets deeper and deeper as the game progresses.

 

It seems to play to the expectations of the gamer, as well as having a brilliant in-game reason why this is the case.

 

At the start of the game, Max is still grieving the loss of his wife and daughter. He really doesn't care any more and wouldn't mind it if someone killed him (although he won't simply let someone kills him - he isn't that kind of suicidal). On top of this, he's an alcoholic and takes a lot of drugs (which is shown by in-game effects).

 

So he just...goes along for the ride. He's just a dumb bodyguard and doesn't really think much about his situation. Then a ton of bad stuff happens, he decides to sober up (he's still addicted to painkillers though, as they're used for health and you choose to grab them) and someone points out a few things to him. Then he starts to realise what a complete moron he's become and begins to put the pieces together.

 

 

It really works well. While it doesn't have the "I'm a monster" aspect of Spec Ops: The Line, it works amazing in its own way.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Your argument loses strength when you use Mario as the example Why not Zelda? You mentioned the posters in Silent Hill, and I think Zelda still does that with their NPCs with love lives and such (not to the extent of Majora's Mask, but still).

This, assuming you mean only Nintendo EAD.

 

I mentioned this earlier.

 

"I would actually put that as a negative. For me, this is why Skyward Sword was weaker than it should have been. The narrative was almost non-existent."

 

But, even with Mario, the storytelling isn't that great. I'm sure Nintendo could come up with something better than they already do. It doesn't need to be on the scale of something like Xenoblade, but I can't help but sigh and think "yeah, yeah, let's skip this shit..." whenever I start up a new Mario game. :p

[Cube]

The start of Super Mario 64 was great because of how little plot there was. It was just "go and play".

[Oxigen_Waste]

Story should be there but unobtrusive. Dark Souls is the perfect balance. Subtle yet good story, but the primary focus is gameplay. That's the way it should be. Story working to enhance gameplay, not overtake it.

 

People who play videogames for the story are doing it very very wrong.

[Cube]

People who play videogames for the story are doing it very very wrong.

 

Unless they enjoy playing a game for the story. Then they're doing it very, very right.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Unless they enjoy playing a game for the story. Then they're doing it very, very right.

 

No they're not. Video game stories are the lowest of the low. Even the best of the best like Planescape wouldn't be taken seriously in literary form. They're shallow and mostly entertainment-driven.

 

It's like using water to conduct electricity. It's more than doable, but very inefficient when compared to other materials. ie: doing it wrong.

 

Edit: I'm not saying it's not okay to like/enjoy a game's story, but to have the story as your primary interest when playing a game is just ignorant.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste

[Cube]

The story (and other narrative things, like the characters and universe) in Mass Effect is one of the biggest reasons why I love the franchise. It's certainly up there with the best sci-fi films.

[Oxigen_Waste]

The story (and other narrative things, like the characters and universe) in Mass Effect is one of the biggest reasons why I love the franchise. It's certainly up there with the best sci-fi films.

 

Like hell it is. Compared to 2001, Solaris (the original, obviously), Stalker, Children Of Men, Metropolis or any sci fi movie where the writing is actually worth a damn, Mass Effect's story is completely insignificant.

 

Yeah, compared to other shallow stuff like the new Star Trek movies, Star Wars, Firefly or Battlestar Galactica (all of which I love), Mass Effect is pretty good, but those are hardly examples of good writing. They're great for what they are, adventurous blockbuster romps, but their purpose is to entertain, not provide good writing. The story's decent and consistent but it's hardly what makes them good.

 

Go read Foundation, The Stars My Destination, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Stranger In A Strange Land, Dune or any of the sci fi greats and see how well Mass Effect holds up afterwards.