By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why does game storytelling have such low standards? [MGS4, HL2, etc.]

thelifatree on 19 April 2010
Slimebeast said:
makingmusic476 said:

I think the first response to Richard's editorial is a must read for all interested in this topic as well, as it touches on the nature of game design and how game design can have a distinct impact on the way a story unfolds:

By Sean Riley on April 17, 2010 - 3:58am.

I think there's an element in your analysis that you're forgetting here -- how is the information given to the player? This is also a big part of storytelling, and it's a crucial element in games, where the delivery moreso than other media is more uncertain; audience controlled.

To my mind, Bioshock is a pretty poor example of good writing. Its story is told too often in clumsy fashion; use of audio diaries, ghost sequence flashbacks, etc. By contrast, I'd give Half-Life 2 much higher marks, where its storytelling does come in dialogue, true, but more often than not in the motion around you, broadcasts from Dr. Breen, etc. It's much more fluid and well controlled.

That said, neither would be in my top shelf marks for great game storytelling. Those three would be Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Far Cry 2.

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus both get the exact same thing right: The story is small, but delivered upfront and then told, endlessly, in the gameplay itself. Ico creates its premise swiftly: The story of two people, trapped in a castle, come to rely upon each other. Then the entire game devotes itself to reinforcing that idea; the usual lack of enemies (and that those enemies who do appear try to separate the two characters) and wide empty spaces, the way that the models are animated to emphasise their togetherness (notice the way save points work, with the characters waking up after having fallen asleep on each other's shoulders; or the way the girl looks at the boy's hand if her hand is held). Shadow of the Colossus creates its faustian bargain (Sixteen lives in exchange for one) and then depopulates its world into only those sixteen, makes those creatures beautiful, and visibly degrades its main character upon each death.

Far Cry 2 understands this model and subverts it slightly by only revealing its point in words halfway in. None the less, it's all told in the gameplay: Give you a clear objective, and then set none of your missions as leading you to completing it, while ramping up the game's brutality and violence in every possible fashion. The player comes to realise the story not through the cut-scenes (which are mostly red herrings) but in gameplay itself. Its Heart of Darkness inspired journey to the dark side is left entirely to the player to realise.

Interesting. I quit Far Cry 2 after a few hours since I heard so many people complain that it's boring and repetitive. Maybe I should complete it.

Does anyone know how many hours a play through of Farcry 2 takes?

It took me around 20-30 hours. But, really I disagree, it was presented in the same was as Crysis. (Story Wise) and even though crysis had an awefu story, it was better than Far Cry 2 IMO. And in Far Cry 2 there are cutscenes... because at the start you're getting beat up, and taken captive and you can't do anything about it.

Far Cry 2 is a bad example of that IMO



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 19 April 2010
thelifatree said:
Slimebeast said:
makingmusic476 said:

I think the first response to Richard's editorial is a must read for all interested in this topic as well, as it touches on the nature of game design and how game design can have a distinct impact on the way a story unfolds:

By Sean Riley on April 17, 2010 - 3:58am.

I think there's an element in your analysis that you're forgetting here -- how is the information given to the player? This is also a big part of storytelling, and it's a crucial element in games, where the delivery moreso than other media is more uncertain; audience controlled.

To my mind, Bioshock is a pretty poor example of good writing. Its story is told too often in clumsy fashion; use of audio diaries, ghost sequence flashbacks, etc. By contrast, I'd give Half-Life 2 much higher marks, where its storytelling does come in dialogue, true, but more often than not in the motion around you, broadcasts from Dr. Breen, etc. It's much more fluid and well controlled.

That said, neither would be in my top shelf marks for great game storytelling. Those three would be Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Far Cry 2.

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus both get the exact same thing right: The story is small, but delivered upfront and then told, endlessly, in the gameplay itself. Ico creates its premise swiftly: The story of two people, trapped in a castle, come to rely upon each other. Then the entire game devotes itself to reinforcing that idea; the usual lack of enemies (and that those enemies who do appear try to separate the two characters) and wide empty spaces, the way that the models are animated to emphasise their togetherness (notice the way save points work, with the characters waking up after having fallen asleep on each other's shoulders; or the way the girl looks at the boy's hand if her hand is held). Shadow of the Colossus creates its faustian bargain (Sixteen lives in exchange for one) and then depopulates its world into only those sixteen, makes those creatures beautiful, and visibly degrades its main character upon each death.

Far Cry 2 understands this model and subverts it slightly by only revealing its point in words halfway in. None the less, it's all told in the gameplay: Give you a clear objective, and then set none of your missions as leading you to completing it, while ramping up the game's brutality and violence in every possible fashion. The player comes to realise the story not through the cut-scenes (which are mostly red herrings) but in gameplay itself. Its Heart of Darkness inspired journey to the dark side is left entirely to the player to realise.

Interesting. I quit Far Cry 2 after a few hours since I heard so many people complain that it's boring and repetitive. Maybe I should complete it.

Does anyone know how many hours a play through of Farcry 2 takes?

It took me around 20-30 hours. But, really I disagree, it was presented in the same was as Crysis. (Story Wise) and even though crysis had an awefu story, it was better than Far Cry 2 IMO. And in Far Cry 2 there are cutscenes... because at the start you're getting beat up, and taken captive and you can't do anything about it.

Far Cry 2 is a bad example of that IMO

I'll delete it from my hard drive then lol.



thelifatree on 19 April 2010
Slimebeast said:
thelifatree said:
Slimebeast said:
makingmusic476 said:

I think the first response to Richard's editorial is a must read for all interested in this topic as well, as it touches on the nature of game design and how game design can have a distinct impact on the way a story unfolds:

By Sean Riley on April 17, 2010 - 3:58am.

I think there's an element in your analysis that you're forgetting here -- how is the information given to the player? This is also a big part of storytelling, and it's a crucial element in games, where the delivery moreso than other media is more uncertain; audience controlled.

To my mind, Bioshock is a pretty poor example of good writing. Its story is told too often in clumsy fashion; use of audio diaries, ghost sequence flashbacks, etc. By contrast, I'd give Half-Life 2 much higher marks, where its storytelling does come in dialogue, true, but more often than not in the motion around you, broadcasts from Dr. Breen, etc. It's much more fluid and well controlled.

That said, neither would be in my top shelf marks for great game storytelling. Those three would be Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Far Cry 2.

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus both get the exact same thing right: The story is small, but delivered upfront and then told, endlessly, in the gameplay itself. Ico creates its premise swiftly: The story of two people, trapped in a castle, come to rely upon each other. Then the entire game devotes itself to reinforcing that idea; the usual lack of enemies (and that those enemies who do appear try to separate the two characters) and wide empty spaces, the way that the models are animated to emphasise their togetherness (notice the way save points work, with the characters waking up after having fallen asleep on each other's shoulders; or the way the girl looks at the boy's hand if her hand is held). Shadow of the Colossus creates its faustian bargain (Sixteen lives in exchange for one) and then depopulates its world into only those sixteen, makes those creatures beautiful, and visibly degrades its main character upon each death.

Far Cry 2 understands this model and subverts it slightly by only revealing its point in words halfway in. None the less, it's all told in the gameplay: Give you a clear objective, and then set none of your missions as leading you to completing it, while ramping up the game's brutality and violence in every possible fashion. The player comes to realise the story not through the cut-scenes (which are mostly red herrings) but in gameplay itself. Its Heart of Darkness inspired journey to the dark side is left entirely to the player to realise.

Interesting. I quit Far Cry 2 after a few hours since I heard so many people complain that it's boring and repetitive. Maybe I should complete it.

Does anyone know how many hours a play through of Farcry 2 takes?

It took me around 20-30 hours. But, really I disagree, it was presented in the same was as Crysis. (Story Wise) and even though crysis had an awefu story, it was better than Far Cry 2 IMO. And in Far Cry 2 there are cutscenes... because at the start you're getting beat up, and taken captive and you can't do anything about it.

Far Cry 2 is a bad example of that IMO

I'll delete it from my hard drive then lol.

If you have it, you might as well play a few hours (EDIT I misread that you already did play a few hours. The gameplay or storytelling didn't really change in my opinion, there was nothing memorable really about the gameplay or story) I found it fun, but on the borderline of if it was any less fun I would quit playing it.

But to me all it was, was the classic go to the guy with the information, do what he tells you, fetch quest kind of game. it's just in first person perspective and makes it feel like the NPC is talking to you, instead of a 3rd person character like in say, Drakes Fortune.



contestgamer on 19 April 2010
O-D-C said:
thelifatree said:
O-D-C said:
when developpes, all developpers set out to make a game, the gameplay SHOULD come 1st, everything else should be secondary, especially story, games arnt meant to be viewed or read, their meant to be PLAYED, if you want a great story read a book.

Im not saying games cant deliver a good story but if the gameplay dosn't compliment it then it's an excersise in futility.

In other words, I agree 100% with the OP

At sometimes the gameplay should come first

 

But at times I disagreeDisagree, The story and the Characters, the world can help create gameply ideas, with mecha, magic what have you that wouldn't be realized if you just trying to make something that's just gameplay, and it feels more Authentic


My point is that developers should do it both ways

 

Look at Nintendo, specifically The Legend Of Zelda

Nintendo has stated many times that when they begin developing new Zelda games the 1st thing they work on is the gameplay mechanics, what will this game do differently, once that's established the games development begins, and the last thing decided on is the story.

Ocarina Of Time

Majora's Mask

Wind Waker

Twilight Princess

Spirit Tracks

and now Zelda Wii are all getting their stories put in LAST, while the gameplay gets the immidiate attention. Now Nintendo has been making Zelda games since 1987 and by following this formula have created the most critically acclaimed game series of all time, both in regards to gameplay and story. Why? Because by the time it comes to making the story elements they can perfectyl wrap it around the established gameplay pacing and formula.

 

Now compare Zelda's story to a Kubrick or Dostojevski and it becomes pretty clear that Nintendo's approach to storytelling is FAIL.



richardhutnik on 19 April 2010
contestgamer said:
Storytelling >>> Gameplay.

Gameplay is probably more important to children, but when you grow up to being an adult you begin searching for meaning and thoughtful dialogue in the world around you. Playing mindless games just doesn't cut it anymore if you are intellectually minded. Having a deep, involving story and gameplay that conforms TO the story is what will make video games an accepted art form among adults, like literature, film etc is.

Why waste my precious time and intellect on games like Gears when I can play MGS1,2,3,4 or Braid or Xenogears and Planescape torment and really learn about myself and the world and become a more complete, open minded, intelligent and better person for it?

When you have a grasp of different mediums, and realize what they are, I believe you need to realize that a game is meant to be PLAYED, which involves ACTIVE involvement.  A story, normally, is best done in a passive mode, where you follow what the controller of the narrative is trying to do.  This is BEST done in a passive mode.  

I would recommend, IF you are that interested in stories, to watch a movie, or get a book, or watch some TV.  The story you will get is a LOT better and a lot more richers.  So, if you are THAT concerned about story at all, why play videogames at all?  Why not engage in other mediums that are so much better at telling stories than videogames, which are meant to be played?  Or, if you do want to play a game with a story, get ahold of an adventure game at least?  These games are generally a LOT less expensive than what you get on consoles.

Or, for actual play as story, get involved in live-action Role Playing, or do theater, or something else.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 19 April 2010
thelifatree said:
Xxain said:
contestgamer said:
Xxain said:
contestgamer said:
Storytelling >>> Gameplay.

Gameplay is probably more important to children, but when you grow up to being an adult you begin searching for meaning and thoughtful dialogue in the world around you. Playing mindless games just doesn't cut it anymore if you are intellectually minded. Having a deep, involving story and gameplay that conforms TO the story is what will make video games an accepted art form among adults, like literature, film etc is.

Why waste my precious time and intellect on games like Gears when I can play MGS1,2,3,4 or Braid or Xenogears and Planescape torment and really learn about myself and the world and become a more complete, open minded, intelligent and better person for it?

Then watch a movie or read a book? why would somebody who wants story choose Video "GAMES" for telling stories over other forms of media that do it better?... this genuinely honest question that bugs the hell outta me.

The word "video games" is outdated imo, "interactive entertainment" is more accurate today and sounds more respectable as well. That includes interactive film, or any media that is at least slightly interactive like Heavy Rain.

naaah... There still Video Games, your just dressing it up because by your previous post I can possibly assume you feel Video Games kiddy, and your " Interactive entertainment" the grown up Video Games.... and you didnt answer my question, mind you im genuinely interested because the story >>> gameplay crowd is shocking and backwards to me

Because to me and others. It's more interesting to understand the world and your charcters and their motivations. Because then it makes the gameplay more meaningful. The story and surrounding enhance the gameplay, and if the gameplay is already awesome, then you have a godlike creation. Because theres an illusion of purpose

rather than pew pew the bad guy or whatever

Ok, then it is important to understand what is NORMALLY a game.  In a game, you are YOURSELF.  You bring your own motives to a game world a designer created, and you end up doing what you want, and trying to accomplish things by your goals.  You are in control.  That is the heard of a game, and why there are issues when combining this, with what you are requesting, which is a story, where someone else is the character you follow.  I will say, because they are GAMES, they first and foremost need to be able to play well, and be FUN.  Games are meant to be FUN first and foremost.  Secondarily, they can serve other purposes, but I personally play a game to have fun.  I do use other storytelling medium for fun and other purposes.



richardhutnik on 19 April 2010

I am going to add this bit to what I have written before. I will say that, while games aren't the best medium for telling stories, they are a GREAT medium for creating a WORLD a player can interactive with, either sandbox, or linearly, which can provide a form of escape and immersion that really can't be done by any other medium. In this environment, you can have it be scripted to some degree with a certain outcome set, the player is put into. In this, you can provide something that causes the player to learn some things, and see an ending, and feel they were part of some grand plot/story of some sort. For it really to work, there needs to be immersion involved in it, so people get escape.

So, the focus I believe needs to be on making a game world that is engaging and provide a way to interact with it, that feels good. Then you look into having a narrative put on top, if you feel it is needed.



richardhutnik on 19 April 2010
Pipedream24 said:

Video game stories are on the most part cliched and predictable, but that doesn't mean they have to be ridiculous. I agree, MGS4 is absolutely a mess. I can't believe so many people hearld it as one of the greatest stories of all time. The story is incoherent at best and borders on absurd at points (Seriously, Raiden going into battle with no arms and his sword in his teeth). Kojima is better than that. MGS, Snatcher, and ZoE were at least enjoyable stories.

Modern Warfare 2 is another game with horrific storytelling. I know it's a FPS, but there is no continuity to the story what so ever. It jumps all over the place and leaves you wondering "What the hell did I just do".

I also agree with Bioshock being the pinnacle in video game stories so far (Heavy Rain was pretty damn good as well). I don't expect Hollywood scripts for games. Development cost are already high enough. But at least keep things in the realm of plausibilty and have the plot make sense.

I personally thought Modern Warfare 2 did a really good job on DELIVERING the story and feeling like an epic.  The issue I have is the story, to me, was a train wreck.  I contrast this with Bad Company 2.  The story of Bad Company 2 was better, but the delivery was weaker than Modern Warfare 2.  So, in short, I would say the story of Modern Warfare 2 was a problem, rather than the delivery.



tarheel91 on 19 April 2010
The Ghost of RubangB said:
I was just going to defend Half-Life 2 and say it's amazing not for the story, but for the storytelling. Then I read makingmusic's post that quoted that Sean Riley character's response to the OP. Beat me to it. Great post too!

And while I haven't played Ico yet, I've played Out of This World several times, and that's Ico's biggest inspiration. I can't gush about Out of This World enough. It inspired games like Ico that allegedly "got it right" and games like Metal Gear Solid that are convoluted cutscene fests. It inspired everything. It has almost no story, but the way it's told.... damn, that's the stuff.


And no no no, games don't need stories. Movies and books and songs don't even need stories. Does anybody care about the story of "Thriller?" No. But they love how the story is told through horror cliches, funky basslines, zombie dance moves, and Vincent Price. Any of those on their own is just "pretty cool," but the way they're mixed into a story is "totally awesome." Citizen Kane isn't considered by so many to be the greatest film of all time due to the story. It's considered the best for its storytelling, starting with the ending, then the news report, and mostly for the contradicting flashbacks with different points of view. Same goes for games.

I think you are the first person I've seen on the site who realizes that what makes a story valuable is not the story itself, but the way its told, Rubang.  No story is unique or inherently better than any other.  Every story has been told before. 

It's very challenging to have good story telling in a video game because of the power given to the player (that's power given up by the creators--those responsible for the story telling). 



richardhutnik on 19 April 2010

And another response I have here is to look at the types of play we qualify as "games":
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=107366&page=1#1

In that thread I go into something like seven different categories based on how structured the play area is.