Errr - kinda long! Didn't realise 
What makes a good video game story? I'm going to post what works for me, and what doesn't. Alas I don't really play RPGs so I'm probably missing out on a few good stories there.
Before I start, a quick disclaimer. It necessary to differentiate between Story and the methods used to tell that story. Whether someone likes a Story is a personal preference, and no doubt what I like some won't, and vice versa. The devices used to tell that story are still rather poor in videogames. As a short film maker, I laugh at how sub-par many cutscenes are.
I find the concept of game stories on my mind recently. This gen, we're getting a load of great games, but the stories aren't necessarily improving at the same speed as the graphics.
The first game that comes to my mind this gen for it's story is BioShock. I admired the setting, and it was a believable world so that's a plus point. While it's not the greatest story, it certainly interested me. You can argue the point the devs effectively took System Shock, and wrapped a classic novel around it. That does diminish the creativity for me; also it's a shame that the harvesting had no real impact on proceedings, but that argument can be levelled at all games that offer so called Moral Choices.
What it did was give you the back story of the world as you played. It was a little heavy handed in places, but I found myself playing through as much to see what happened next as much as I played for the game.
Ultimately, I thinks that's one of the best examples this gen. It was a self contained story. I'm getting increasingly fed up of video game designers counting on a convoluted back story that only the most obsessive know / care about. This came up briefly in the KillZone2 first play thread.
Now, KZ2 has apparently got some big back story. Apparently it's rather interesting, and sets up the game story. That's great. Creating a universe history is always a good thing. It's worked for Tolkein, even Lucas done it for Star Wars. It will help define the different people of the world, which in turn will influence the art styles and make the world richer.
However, as an adult with limited time to game, I can say that on the whole, I don't give a **** about back stories. If I watch a film like Star Wars, I know there's a whole pile of books, comics, spin offs, even technical schematics of the ships out there I could explore if I wished, but I don't have to. They'd likely give me more of an appreciation of the movies, but honestly, I don't care. For those that do, it's great. For those that want a 2 hour movie to entertain them, that's also there. I think that's great.
And what's good with KillZone2 is it offered me that. It's a simple story, and despite knowing nothing about the history and not playing the previous games, it didn't matter. Most importantly, not knowing the back story didn't diminish the game for me. the dialogue may be ropey, but the story itself was good imo. Also, the game handled the cut scenes very well, something most games don't do. Don't get we wrong, it's not an awesome story, but it handles what it has very well. It tells the story well, the cutscenes are very professionally put together [from a directing and editing movie perspective]. Whether the story is good is a matter of opinion. I think a lot of the issues people have with it, dialogue not withstanding, is that it's actually a rather minor story - we're so used to games where the fate of the universe is resting on our shoulders, that a game that doesn't offer that kind of emotional high may let some people down.
I should reiterate here, I'm not lauding KZ2 as a great story! Far from it. But how the story was told, I thought was good. Despite the voice acting and dialogue
I think my film background has me looking at these things more from a technical approach, and the cutscenes were directed very well.
Now lets take Metal Gear 4. I played the first way back when, but that's it. I played the demo for two, but no more. So imagine my horror at being totally isolated from the game world when I picked up 4. It made no sense. It was so bad, that with the frequency of cut scenes also tiring me, I started skipping them. Then I had no context for my missions, and lost interest. So I sold it. My loss? Possibly. But also the game's loss. Games need to engage the player regardless of their history with previous installments. Films strive to do the same. Knowing the history adds a richness but shouldn't be compulsory. In this case, the poorly directed, long and laborious cut scenes work against the story as well.
Something else I'm tired of in games are dull twists that seem to exist only to excite the fanboy element who want to seek depth in their latest Greatest Game Ever! These twists always end in some daft cliff hanger, again seemingly just to please the obsessives out there.
Gears2 is a great example. Gears1 was streamlined in it's narrative. There's a history there, but it implied depth without slapping you around the face screaming, "I'm WORTHWHILE AND MEANINGFUL! ACCEPT ME AS LITERATURE!" Gears2 apparently couldn't resist going that route. It's pretty much a catalogue of video game cliches. Try as it might, it can't pull off the emotional responses it wants. Poor writing, poor direction. Scenes lack the emotional punch they strive for because the build up is poor and the payoffs mishandled. There are inspired moments - the shot of Dom's wife going from Past to Present was very good, although the camera angle wasn't the best for it. But the scene as a whole was mishandled, and not helped by Dom then carrying on as if nothing had happened.
Gears2 also, frustratingly, seeks to follow the Halo Flow Chart. It ends with a battle, in this case hugely unsatisfying, then chucks a story curveball at you, and a twist that actually had me shaking my head because it was so poor. Plus it decided to go the whole Flood route by adding a third party with infected Locusts. Halo2 actually went one further adding a fourth party to proceedings. More is not always better.
Now, I'm not saying I don't want evolving stories with depth, but they need to be well told. Halo3 really let me down in that respect, the cut scenes were nonsensical to me because I'd not polished up on my Halo Lore beforehand. And I shouldn't have to.
I get the impression that many game writers think the pinnacle of movie writing is Underworld. That's a great example of a ghastly, overly elaborate back story force fed down the viewer throat.
I'm sure by now the fanboys are sharpening their knives
Thinking of what stories do work for me, my mind keeps drifting back to Ico. Wonderful. It told it's own story, you cared about the characters. Or actually, did it really tell a story, or did I fill in the narrative to tell the story I wanted to tell?
I'm wondering if stories weren't better back in the days when you had to imagine your own. I spent a long time playing Elite, which had no plot beyond a short introductory story in the box. I'd sit down and make my own world out of the images on the TV. One day I could be a Bounty Hunter, the next a fleeing smuggler. Games now have the ability to show everything, so imagination is, for the most part, no longer needed. Suspension of belief, throwing yourself into the story, isn't the same as creating your story.
Maybe that's why I liked BattleField2 so much. Multiplayer war, but each game, I'd end up with a story of how I done this or that.
As games strive to get closer to movies, the lack of writing ability shines through. I don't think it's helped by the avatars we are meant to see as humans. That may be a core problem, that try as they might, the lip synching, avatar performance, and dialogue are still disjointed. A line of dialogue that may be passable with an onscreen actor loses something when digitally represented.
The main issue in the story telling process itself may be how to integrate player action cohesively within the story. Or probably vice versa. The best games, like the best films, tell their stories on the move. Cut scenes should be a cinematic climax of a sequence, not bogged down with exposition. But telling a player important plot points while they're concentrating on something else, usually shooting, isn't the best idea either, as key points could be missed.
It's going to be interesting to see where devs go in the future. They'll hopefully get the pretense out of their system, and evolve stories into the gameplay. Halo and Half Life 2 integrated large portions of their stories with the player still in control of their avatar, which should worked really well. In Half Life 2, when the action stopped for some exposition, the characters behaved like you were there, maintaining eye contact as you walked around. Maybe that's the best way to include exposition in an interactive game?
So what works for you? What games tell the best story for you, and why?
What makes a good video game story? I'm going to post what works for me, and what doesn't. Alas I don't really play RPGs so I'm probably missing out on a few good stories there.
Before I start, a quick disclaimer. It necessary to differentiate between Story and the methods used to tell that story. Whether someone likes a Story is a personal preference, and no doubt what I like some won't, and vice versa. The devices used to tell that story are still rather poor in videogames. As a short film maker, I laugh at how sub-par many cutscenes are.
I find the concept of game stories on my mind recently. This gen, we're getting a load of great games, but the stories aren't necessarily improving at the same speed as the graphics.
The first game that comes to my mind this gen for it's story is BioShock. I admired the setting, and it was a believable world so that's a plus point. While it's not the greatest story, it certainly interested me. You can argue the point the devs effectively took System Shock, and wrapped a classic novel around it. That does diminish the creativity for me; also it's a shame that the harvesting had no real impact on proceedings, but that argument can be levelled at all games that offer so called Moral Choices.
What it did was give you the back story of the world as you played. It was a little heavy handed in places, but I found myself playing through as much to see what happened next as much as I played for the game.
Ultimately, I thinks that's one of the best examples this gen. It was a self contained story. I'm getting increasingly fed up of video game designers counting on a convoluted back story that only the most obsessive know / care about. This came up briefly in the KillZone2 first play thread.
Now, KZ2 has apparently got some big back story. Apparently it's rather interesting, and sets up the game story. That's great. Creating a universe history is always a good thing. It's worked for Tolkein, even Lucas done it for Star Wars. It will help define the different people of the world, which in turn will influence the art styles and make the world richer.
However, as an adult with limited time to game, I can say that on the whole, I don't give a **** about back stories. If I watch a film like Star Wars, I know there's a whole pile of books, comics, spin offs, even technical schematics of the ships out there I could explore if I wished, but I don't have to. They'd likely give me more of an appreciation of the movies, but honestly, I don't care. For those that do, it's great. For those that want a 2 hour movie to entertain them, that's also there. I think that's great.
And what's good with KillZone2 is it offered me that. It's a simple story, and despite knowing nothing about the history and not playing the previous games, it didn't matter. Most importantly, not knowing the back story didn't diminish the game for me. the dialogue may be ropey, but the story itself was good imo. Also, the game handled the cut scenes very well, something most games don't do. Don't get we wrong, it's not an awesome story, but it handles what it has very well. It tells the story well, the cutscenes are very professionally put together [from a directing and editing movie perspective]. Whether the story is good is a matter of opinion. I think a lot of the issues people have with it, dialogue not withstanding, is that it's actually a rather minor story - we're so used to games where the fate of the universe is resting on our shoulders, that a game that doesn't offer that kind of emotional high may let some people down.
I should reiterate here, I'm not lauding KZ2 as a great story! Far from it. But how the story was told, I thought was good. Despite the voice acting and dialogue
I think my film background has me looking at these things more from a technical approach, and the cutscenes were directed very well.Now lets take Metal Gear 4. I played the first way back when, but that's it. I played the demo for two, but no more. So imagine my horror at being totally isolated from the game world when I picked up 4. It made no sense. It was so bad, that with the frequency of cut scenes also tiring me, I started skipping them. Then I had no context for my missions, and lost interest. So I sold it. My loss? Possibly. But also the game's loss. Games need to engage the player regardless of their history with previous installments. Films strive to do the same. Knowing the history adds a richness but shouldn't be compulsory. In this case, the poorly directed, long and laborious cut scenes work against the story as well.
Something else I'm tired of in games are dull twists that seem to exist only to excite the fanboy element who want to seek depth in their latest Greatest Game Ever! These twists always end in some daft cliff hanger, again seemingly just to please the obsessives out there.
Gears2 is a great example. Gears1 was streamlined in it's narrative. There's a history there, but it implied depth without slapping you around the face screaming, "I'm WORTHWHILE AND MEANINGFUL! ACCEPT ME AS LITERATURE!" Gears2 apparently couldn't resist going that route. It's pretty much a catalogue of video game cliches. Try as it might, it can't pull off the emotional responses it wants. Poor writing, poor direction. Scenes lack the emotional punch they strive for because the build up is poor and the payoffs mishandled. There are inspired moments - the shot of Dom's wife going from Past to Present was very good, although the camera angle wasn't the best for it. But the scene as a whole was mishandled, and not helped by Dom then carrying on as if nothing had happened.
Gears2 also, frustratingly, seeks to follow the Halo Flow Chart. It ends with a battle, in this case hugely unsatisfying, then chucks a story curveball at you, and a twist that actually had me shaking my head because it was so poor. Plus it decided to go the whole Flood route by adding a third party with infected Locusts. Halo2 actually went one further adding a fourth party to proceedings. More is not always better.
Now, I'm not saying I don't want evolving stories with depth, but they need to be well told. Halo3 really let me down in that respect, the cut scenes were nonsensical to me because I'd not polished up on my Halo Lore beforehand. And I shouldn't have to.
I get the impression that many game writers think the pinnacle of movie writing is Underworld. That's a great example of a ghastly, overly elaborate back story force fed down the viewer throat.
I'm sure by now the fanboys are sharpening their knives
Thinking of what stories do work for me, my mind keeps drifting back to Ico. Wonderful. It told it's own story, you cared about the characters. Or actually, did it really tell a story, or did I fill in the narrative to tell the story I wanted to tell?
I'm wondering if stories weren't better back in the days when you had to imagine your own. I spent a long time playing Elite, which had no plot beyond a short introductory story in the box. I'd sit down and make my own world out of the images on the TV. One day I could be a Bounty Hunter, the next a fleeing smuggler. Games now have the ability to show everything, so imagination is, for the most part, no longer needed. Suspension of belief, throwing yourself into the story, isn't the same as creating your story.
Maybe that's why I liked BattleField2 so much. Multiplayer war, but each game, I'd end up with a story of how I done this or that.
As games strive to get closer to movies, the lack of writing ability shines through. I don't think it's helped by the avatars we are meant to see as humans. That may be a core problem, that try as they might, the lip synching, avatar performance, and dialogue are still disjointed. A line of dialogue that may be passable with an onscreen actor loses something when digitally represented.
The main issue in the story telling process itself may be how to integrate player action cohesively within the story. Or probably vice versa. The best games, like the best films, tell their stories on the move. Cut scenes should be a cinematic climax of a sequence, not bogged down with exposition. But telling a player important plot points while they're concentrating on something else, usually shooting, isn't the best idea either, as key points could be missed.
It's going to be interesting to see where devs go in the future. They'll hopefully get the pretense out of their system, and evolve stories into the gameplay. Halo and Half Life 2 integrated large portions of their stories with the player still in control of their avatar, which should worked really well. In Half Life 2, when the action stopped for some exposition, the characters behaved like you were there, maintaining eye contact as you walked around. Maybe that's the best way to include exposition in an interactive game?
So what works for you? What games tell the best story for you, and why?
Comment