What makes a good story & ending for a video game?
- Page 1 of 1
It seems that right now, we have two types of stories: The Last of Us & everything else... well, okay, that's an oversimplification on my part.
Here are the type of stories we tend to see in video games:
1. Cliched slop featuring a generic White bald-headed marine living the horror of his war-torn society. Usually features a few characters who have some sort of relation to the main protag, who are given no context to the player as to why they should be important to him/her. A couple of them usually die somehow in a melodramatic manner that causes eye rolls for the player. Usually ends up fighting a boss that is some war-obsessed maniac. The main protag will most likely die at the end.
Games that follow this example: Any recent FPS/TPS that comes to your mind.
2. JRPG stories usually inspired by anime and manga. As a result of that inspiration... deus ex machinas and character tropes... deus ex machinas and character tropes EVERYWHERE. May have terrible English voice acting and dialogue. Main protag will make you hate him/her almost as much as you hate yourself. Almost ALWAYS features some romantic plot between the main protagonist and the white mage. Main romance might also involve your (step)sister. Boss fight usually involves someone who's all evil because "IT'S FATE AND I'M DOING THIS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!" Do not expect plot coherence.
Games that follow this example: Final Fantasy X & XIII, probably some other JRPG's that I've played over the years that aren't coming to mind right now.
3. Bland narrative in which everything is dull, and no character is interesting. Awkward writing. You'll fall asleep playing it.
Games that follow this example: Battlefield Hardline.
4. A narrative that is somewhat self-aware and makes fun of itself constantly. Makes it a point to create completely ironic situations with the characters.
Games that follow this example: Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, San Andreas, Ballad of Gay Tony & V.
5. Narratives that involve the main protagonist doing shit for people that have no real relation to the main protag. But, the game makes you feel like a badass, so you don't care.
Games that follow this example: Red Dead Redemption.
6. Narratives that involve multiple branching options and rely on decision making from the player to push forward. Usually involves making alliances and establishing relationships with in-game characters to use towards a larger goal. Usually has multiple endings, assuming the writers don't fuck it up.
Games that follow this example: Deus Ex series, Mass Effect series.
7. Self-contained story in which gameplay and narrative go hand-in-hand. Meaning, if it's, say, a survival-horror game, the story and gameplay usually revolve around that and ONLY that. Might see some romantic subplots here and there, but the story doesn't usually deviate too much. Story is usually character driven. No real chiches exist in the plot.
Games that follow this example: The Walking Dead, The Last of Us.
Then you have the endings... which video games haven't really nailed down at this point. Can't really think of a good ending I've personally experienced outside of FFIX. The obvious bad example is Mass Effect 3 - an ending so poor, it almost killed the IP. Even TLoU's ending was simply okay.
Obviously, video games have some progress to make when it comes to crafting fulfilling narratives and endings...
I don't know, it's a rad game.
By RBKPlay the first Knights of the Old Republic.The twist is very cool but it's not the end of the game. The ending itself is fairly unremarkable.
Mind blown forever.
6. Narratives that involve multiple branching options and rely on decision making from the player to push forward. Usually involves making alliances and establishing relationships with in-game characters to use towards a larger goal. Usually has multiple endings, assuming the writers don't fuck it up.
Games that follow this example: Deus Ex series, Mass Effect series.
This and the GTA style are my favorites..
Mass Effect had potential to be REALLY interesting in these regards with the series remembering your actions.. But they kinda rebooted the series with 2.. so
It's like they all pledge allegiance to the fan-fiction style of writing.
Videogames have gotten a lot better at writing engaging and interesting characters, and that's usually all that matters.
By JayTenDon't give a shit about stories in video games. I play games for the gameplay. As long as the climax is fun and engaging, I'm good.
Ummmm...
By RBKPlay the first Knights of the Old Republic.
Mind blown forever.
Wish I could get into Star Wars. I tried playing KOTOR, and couldn't get out of the first setpiece before I stopped caring.
By jWILL253Um what? Should I word it differently? Final battle. End boss. Last level. It should be good.By JayTenDon't give a shit about stories in video games. I play games for the gameplay. As long as the climax is fun and engaging, I'm good.
Ummmm...
By RBK Go To Post http://www.hedberg.biz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/story-framework.jpg">
It's not that game writers are 'bad', it's just that they follow this formula to an incredibly basic T.
nobody does...
Last of Us's story is mediocre at best, which means it's probably great in video game terms.
By RBK Go To PostIt's basic plot structure, how else can you tell a story?
Key word is basic, though.
I have no problem with following a simple plot structure, but the problem is that video game writers don't even make the story interesting or engaging within that plot structure. They're just basic, going through all the motions.
By Diprosalic Go To Postnobody does...
Last of Us's story is mediocre at best, which means it's probably great in video game terms.
http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/rudy.png
">Well like 80% of all games have either bad or regurgitated stories, don't expect much really unless the game is touted as story-driven.
The story itself in TLOU is pretty mediocre(same for the Uncharted series), Naughty Dogs more than makes up for it with presentation.
Interactivity and player agency does a lot for the enjoyment of the tale, so comparing writing for gaming to a novel should never be a 1:1 thing. It's not fair. It's taking the best aspects of a novel and ignoring the best aspects of a game. When we talk about a novel, we don't say "But I had no influence over Frodo's decisions so....".
With that said, I've been fine with where writing is in games. My main thing is I want developers to think harder about player agency. We need more control over which story beats we can influence, and the focus should be there, not necessarily on better writing for the same linear experiences.
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostInteractivity and player agency does a lot for the enjoyment of the tale, so comparing writing for gaming to a novel should never be a 1:1 thing. It's not fair. It's taking the best aspects of a novel and ignoring the best aspects of a game. When we talk about a novel, we don't say "But I had no influence over Frodo's decisions so....".
With that said, I've been fine with where writing is in games. My main thing is I want developers to think harder about player agency. We need more control over which story beats we can influence, and the focus should be there, not necessarily on better writing for the same linear experiences.
Bingo.
That's the number one reason why I don't think storytelling in videogames will ever be on the same level as books and movies. They are ALOT more limited in their range of story telling because of the burden of having to make conflict interactive.
Personally though I don't really care about videogame writing.
I think world building and characterization are far more important. At least to my personal enjoyment.
If the devs can create an interesting world to play in and fun characters to interact with in it, I can probably get into the story of their game.
By RBK Go To Post http://www.hedberg.biz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/story-framework.jpg">
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way this graph was mislabeled as 'Map Design'
By Retro Go To PostBingo.
That's the number one reason why I don't think storytelling in videogames will ever be on the same level as books and movies. They are ALOT more limited in their range of story telling because of the burden of having to make conflict interactive.
I generally agree with this, but I think a narrower issue is a certain fixation on conflict itself and a continual failure to conceive of interactive conflicts beyond violence. This isn't all games, of course, but is in practically every AAA game of which I can recall quickly (the Portal series is arguably a notable exception). For examples that avoid this impoverished conception of conflict, we need only look at numerous point-and-click adventure games, wherein puzzles are the conflicts; QWOP, wherein simply moving your limbs is the conflict; Facade, wherein interpersonal communication is the conflict; The Stanley Parable, wherein moving through and interacting with the environment and thereby generating a multiplicity of narratives is the conflict; or Dear Esther, wherein synthesizing the various elements of voiceover, landscape, and other movements and events into a cohering story is the conflict.
When repetitive violence to others or the threat of violence to your avatar (whether by others or the environment) is the conflict, the only thoughtful matter for a (meta)narrative is a critique of the banalization of violence itself, which is hypocritical and impotent when it merely reiterates the problem at hand and very quickly becomes banal itself when repeated enough. One can only take a narrative so seriously when one's wantonly producing corpses.
Another matter that's more tangential to all this is that videogame designers need to find better ways to deal with failure. Failure as a pseudo-conclusion, as a failure to use the meager options at one's disposal to do precisely what the designer intended, reinforces the aforementioned simplistic use of conflict and has long since become uninteresting. A dynamic narrative where failure is incorporated, rather than simply shunted off to an alternate reality of "Game Over", is a fecund means by which interaction could become more meaningful.
There just aren't that many writers that know how to make use of the unique ways video games allow to tell a story. I don't agree that they are more limited, quite the contrary.
the one guy that can do it, is busy playing candy crush.
At this point, I think the quality of the writers is ultimately irrelevant. When a decent writer is forced to retroactively make sense of a stupid situation (the one created by the designers - the situation consisting of what actions are available to the player's character, where they will take these actions, etc), the results will almost always be uninspiring. This is the reason people will pluck out some smaller constituent, like dialogue, voiceacting, cutscenes, lore, etc, and use that as an example of good "writing" overall - because the narrative whole is usually a piece of shit, regardless of what the writers attempt.
By flabberghastly Go To PostAt this point, I think the quality of the writers is ultimately irrelevant. When a decent writer is forced to retroactively make sense of a stupid situation (the one created by the designers - the situation consisting of what actions are available to the player's character, where they will take these actions, etc), the results will almost always be uninspiring. This is the reason people will pluck out some smaller constituent, like dialogue, voiceacting, cutscenes, lore, etc, and use that as an example of good "writing" overall - because the narrative whole is usually a piece of shit, regardless of what the writers attempt.
I think the fixation on direct conflict and violence in gaming is a byproduct of the role of games in entertainment. Even before video games existed, games have always primarily existed as tests of skill or competitions, which are by nature both indirect and direct forms of external conflict.
It's only recently with videogames that players have started to demand context for these acts. and I think you hit the nail on the head with your next post. It's only natural that these stories designed to contextualize fighting for the sake of fighting or gathering points for a sense of progression would be rather stupid.
I do think it's possible to design a game around telling a story, and you give multiple examples of such in point and click adventure games. I think the problem with this method is that if you take out the challenge and competition of video games, what I would define as the core aspect of what makes games entertaining, are you making a game that is "fun" independent of its storytelling? Is it worth playing games with such a narrow range of options without the driving force of a narrative?
and that I think is the core problem with videogames as a storytelling medium. I think game design and and game writing both directly constrain each other to the point where you could even say they are inversely proportional. To tell a coherent story, especially one without external conflict, you have to really limit player actions, options and overall agency within the game world, and when you don't, not only does it become increasingly harder to tell a coherent story, you're also limited in the type of story you're able to tell.
By RBK Go To Post http://www.hedberg.biz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/story-framework.jpg">
1. Always risking to be "that guy," I just want to point out that when RBK said that this was the basic formula to plot, a critique of it would mean going all the way back to 335 BC and accusing Aristotle of banality. Essentially, the very way in which we navigate the humanities is based upon this formula on the topic of drama that he came up with in his Poetics. Results may very when one deviates from this structure. Many have tried (modernism and postmodernism), few have succeeded.
2. Following the thread, it appears that everyone is in tacit agreement that Heavy Rain is the GOAT despite its flaws. It does a lot of what yall are asking for, from being able to manipulate outcomes to "soft" game-overs (when you fail but the game keeps going).
3. I recently finished TLOU, and am in the process of writing a response, comparing it to the original ending of ME3. Even though the egregiousness of the offense in the latter is magnified by negating one-hundred hours (or so) of gameplay through three games, TLOU does something similar in a fraction of the time. My wife watched me play TLOU and I was disappointed in her apathy to the point of being mad because she was unimpressed. Actually ruined one of my days off. But after thinking it over, she's right. Joel's transformation from despising Ellie (loss of Tess is one reason for sure) to protecting Ellie even at the cost of humanity's survival isn't convincing despite the evolution[ of their banter throughout their quest. Cool, the exchange of Sarah's photo from Ellie to Joel feels like it is supposed to be "that moment," where the gamer remembers 15 hours back in real-time concerning how Joel felt, but that was also 20 years ago in game-time. So yeah, the ending of TLOU betrays Joel's character except that he's consistent in being human turned homicidal sociopath in the post-apocalyptic setting.
Great gameplay though.
4. This is the part where I give a nod to Retro and flabberghastly's contributions. Maybe Ebert was right in that games can't be art due to their inherit limitations.
5. I'm currently playing Grim Fandango Remastered. A point-and-click game. It's interesting, but also frustrating. There is ZERO hand-holding, and I have had to use a FAQ so that I don't waste hours trying to figure out what "C" is in a A, B, C, D, E process of figuring out the linear sequence in which puzzles are solved to progress in the game. Great voice acting and dialogue, but no pressing action. I'm more motivated to get it over with so I can move on to Oddworld: Big and Tasty. I would not say that point-and-click games like this or Gone Home, etc are the answer to the stagnation caused by how we envision and carry out violence.
By Zero Tolerance Go To Post
5. I'm currently playing Grim Fandango Remastered. A point-and-click game. It's interesting, but also frustrating. There is ZERO hand-holding, and I have had to use a FAQ so that I don't waste hours trying to figure out what "C" is in a A, B, C, D, E process of figuring out the linear sequence in which puzzles are solved to progress in the game. Great voice acting and dialogue, but no pressing action. I'm more motivated to get it over with so I can move on to Oddworld: Big and Tasty. I would not say that point-and-click games like this or Gone Home, etc are the answer to the stagnation caused by how we envision and carry out violence.
Beat that game years ago with no faq and no hours of frustration. In game help is nice but it has gotten to the point where that's half the game..
By Retro Go To PostI do think it's possible to design a game around telling a story, and you give multiple examples of such in point and click adventure games. I think the problem with this method is that if you take out the challenge and competition of video games, what I would define as the core aspect of what makes games entertaining, are you making a game that is "fun" independent of its storytelling? Is it worth playing games with such a narrow range of options without the driving force of a narrative?
and that I think is the core problem with videogames as a storytelling medium. I think game design and and game writing both directly constrain each other to the point where you could even say they are inversely proportional. To tell a coherent story, especially one without external conflict, you have to really limit player actions, options and overall agency within the game world, and when you don't, not only does it become increasingly harder to tell a coherent story, you're also limited in the type of story you're able to tell.
I don't see any necessity where a focus (not necessarily primary) on narrative precludes the incorporation of complex systems, leaving the game bereft of challenge or competition. Puzzles in point-and-click adventures are often challenging (some illogically or absurdly so - see Zero's complaints above), for example. I consider it, however, a fruitless endeavor to hypothetically strip away elements until we find some skeleton we're willing to accommodate. We don't initially encounter a game as a shotgun blast of discrete parts, even if we tend to carve it up into pieces retrospectively.
A more pressing matter, at least for me, is the creation of new actions or methods for action allowing for a proliferation of non-violent conflicts that would scratch the itch you seem to be alluding to. If corporations can "gamify" seemingly everything 'out there' in the world, surely game designers can find successful ways to absorb everyday activities into the games themselves in interesting, challenging, and/or competitive ways. Pulling a trigger, swinging a sword, leaping over a chasm - these are far from the only activities that could be made exciting, engrossing, or meaningful in a videogame.
By Zero Tolerance Go To Post4. This is the part where I give a nod to Retro and flabberghastly's contributions. Maybe Ebert was right in that games can't be art due to their inherit limitations.
I hope I'm not misunderstood as in some way attempting to highlight inherent flaws in the essence of the medium. I'm really just trying to critique videogames as they often are, especially AAA productions.
The question of whether it's an art or not has absolutely no meaning for me. In a world where Duchamp's Fountain is nearly a century old, I can't believe so many people have wasted so many words on the topic.
By flabberghastly Go To PostThe question of whether it's an art or not has absolutely no meaning for me. In a world where Duchamp's Fountain is nearly a century old, I can't believe so many people have wasted so many words on the topic.
Nice reference.
If a fucking urinal can be considered "art", why can't video games be considered as such?
By flabberghastly Go To Post
I don't see any necessity where a focus (not necessarily primary) on narrative precludes the incorporation of complex systems, leaving the game bereft of challenge or competition. Puzzles in point-and-click adventures are often challenging (some illogically or absurdly so - see Zero's complaints above), for example. I consider it, however, a fruitless endeavor to hypothetically strip away elements until we find some skeleton we're willing to accommodate. We don't initially encounter a game as a shotgun blast of discrete parts, even if we tend to carve it up into pieces retrospectively.
A more pressing matter, at least for me, is the creation of new actions or methods for action allowing for a proliferation of non-violent conflicts that would scratch the itch you seem to be alluding to. If corporations can "gamify" seemingly everything 'out there' in the world, surely game designers can find successful ways to absorb everyday activities into the games themselves in interesting, challenging, and/or competitive ways. Pulling a trigger, swinging a sword, leaping over a chasm - these are far from the only activities that could be made exciting, engrossing, or meaningful in a videogame.
I hope I'm not misunderstood as in some way attempting to highlight inherent flaws in the essence of the medium. I'm really just trying to critique videogames as they often are, especially AAA productions.
The question of whether it's an art or not has absolutely no meaning for me. In a world where Duchamp's Fountain is nearly a century old, I can't believe so many people have wasted so many words on the topic
Naw, I appreciate the discussion. I'm just in the camp that does not consider celebrating all art just because it's art. Bad art should be shamed. And that's part of what we're discussing here.
It appears that in your last comments, you seemed to summon both The Sims and Minecraft. Very popular games that a generation ago, many would have discredited as games "for casuals." A "hardcore" game would be Fallout: New Vegas, but again, one must be lethal.
Speaking of Fallout, the two original games were great. IIRC, it is actually possible to do non-lethal runs of both games. Deus Ex, IIRC, also provides room for non-lethal runs. I agree that we should have more games like that.