Importance of Storylines

[Megabot]

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering how important do you consider a game's story? Does a game have to have a minimum amount of plot in order to be considered playable? It seems like every game must have dialog and character development delivered to the player in cinematic cutscenes in between the gameplay. It doesn't matter if it's well-done, as long as it's there. Can a modern game have little to no story and be liked, as long as it has good gameplay? Such as an fps that just involves killing enemies and solving puzzles, with no backstory or ingame plot. I can't think of any recent games like that off the top of my head.

[General Zod]

Fighting games don't really need any plot whatsoever. Though some series manage to make it somewhat entertaining with a less than serious plotline. (Tekken comes to mind).

[Darth Wong]

Games that have very repetitive play (such as shooters) and no role-play or character-building component (against, such as shooters) virtually need some kind of story in order to be compelling for anything more than a short spell.

[Bounty]

I find that a story is nice, but only insofar as it's used to set the mood and create a natural flow between levels. It doesn't have to expansive or emotional, but I will expect it to give the player enough of a drive to continue beyond "here's a key, go through the next door, rinse and repeat".

[Darth Wong]

Also, if you integrate puzzles into your storyline, they should be organic to the scenario. One of the reasons I hated Metroid Prime and stopped playing it was the fact that it was all so "video-gamey". Instead of presenting you with problems that seem like they might actually occur in the setting and expecting you to find logical solutions to those problems, it gave you stupid "Where's Waldo" puzzles: find the key, locate the hidden symbol on the rock wall, shoot the red spot on the far wall, yadda yadda yadda.

[Stark]

Resident Evil is probably the ultimate example of that: zombies everywhere, fight for survival... so time to find the 6 gems to open the city gardens, or push the statues to open a door in the police station, etc. The Japanese seem to dig that kind of 'game-y' puzzle.

Frankly, puzzles should stay the fuck away from FPS games. Mainly because I suck at them.

[Panzer Grenadier]

In the barest sense: No. A game just needs to have a fun and/or interesting game mechanic to be a good game. This is really all games were at first. think of all the classic coin-op games (asteroids, missile command, space invaders, pac man). These games had little or no background story and were just about a cool idea or concept, and had no in game narrative.

As games matured, having a cohesive storyline became more important to the overall package of the game. Still there are throwbacks. Serious Sam and Painkiller are recent examples of FPS that had little focus on narrative, and a lot of focus on blowing the shit out of stuff. It can also be argued that most games still have a narrative that simply serves to set up the game play. How important is the storyline of say Devil May Cry or Katamari Damacy compared to the gameplay?

[Erik von Nein]

Like others have said, you don't need a compelling storyline (or any storyline) for a game to be good or fun. Do card games or board games need a story to entertain? Not really. The original Pac-Man never had a story and people played it by the millions. Same with pinball machines or pachinco machines.

However, some games are only good because of the story. Bioshock is a recent (and painful) example of how the storyline, storytelling and atmosphere are the only reasons I continued playing it. But that's mostly because the difficulty was a complete joke and there was no reason to use any other weapons either than your freakin' wrench.

[Nephtys]

I prefer games with storylines. In the 1993-1997 Era (basically, pre and early 3D), games became sophisticated enough to really be storyline driven to an extent that appeals to more than those with the most awesome of imaginations (Eg. you are standing before a house. There is a mailbox here)

Of recent years of course, creative storytelling has become less of a big deal as games are now more and more targetted towards the 'kiddie' or 'frat kiddie' demographics. Le sigh. Because youngsters these days get bored watching a 25 second long cutscene between missions. -.-

[Stark]

Of recent years of course, creative storytelling has become less of a big deal as games are now more and more targetted towards the 'kiddie' or 'frat kiddie' demographics. Le sigh. Because youngsters these days get bored watching a 25 second long cutscene between missions. -.-

I've actually noticed the growth of absurdly pompous overdone storytelling. MGS, Bioshock, and the like - 'story driven' by which they mean 'storybook with occasional fights'. The Final Fantasy series was doing it way back in the 90s, but it seems these days games -require- such an overblown sense of self-importance.

Games require a setting, in that something is happening somewhere and you have a role. This doesn't mean games need to drag the player by the hand through a series of dramatic setpieces.

[Dooey Jo]

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering how important do you consider a game's story? Does a game have to have a minimum amount of plot in order to be considered playable? It seems like every game must have dialog and character development delivered to the player in cinematic cutscenes in between the gameplay. It doesn't matter if it's well-done, as long as it's there. Can a modern game have little to no story and be liked, as long as it has good gameplay?

What the story does is that it gives incentive to the player to play on. It's easy to use and powerful (although most game stories aren't exactly fantastic, and there are several reasons for that. But usually they do the job), but certainly not the only thing one can use. With older games it was common that getting a good highscore was supposed to keep players playing. In other games there are exploration elements, or social interaction elements, to name a few such things.

So no, a proper ingame-presented story is not strictly necessary for a game to be good, but it is used because it's easy to add, and also because game designers like to tell stories (usually).

To what degree a game can do without a story also depends on what type of game it is, of course. An adventure game without a story would need something pretty good to give incentive to not throw the damn thing away, while a fighting game such as Super Smash Bros. have other appeals.

Such as an fps that just involves killing enemies and solving puzzles, with no backstory or ingame plot. I can't think of any recent games like that off the top of my head.

That's because we've probably seen pretty much everything the FPS genre has to offer, except for better graphics and new stories, and if they just made a new Quake1 and charged full price for it, people would feel ripped off. Killing enemies and solving puzzles isn't very fun for very long if you've seen it all before.

[Ghost Rider]

Stories are done in games to convince the player to go from point A to point B, and to make the player feel more important then unknown drone #4201865.

As for needing them? Used to be, not at all. Now? Yeah, because people have gotten used to them to such a degree they feel cheated when they aren't Master Chief/Dante/Ryu rather then Schlub #1.

[Megabot]

True, many times a storyline is what makes a game worth playing and keeps gamers coming back for more with sequels. As games become more sophisticated people expect them to be interactive movies as much as being fun to play.

[Stark]

True, many times a storyline is what makes a game worth playing and keeps gamers coming back for more with sequels. As games become more sophisticated people expect them to be interactive movies as much as being fun to play.

You mean, 'marketing'. The Halo storyline, for instance, is a brilliant piece of marketing that sucks people into sequels regardless of quality.

[Ghost Rider]

True, many times a storyline is what makes a game worth playing and keeps gamers coming back for more with sequels. As games become more sophisticated people expect them to be interactive movies as much as being fun to play.

You mean, 'marketing'. The Halo storyline, for instance, is a brilliant piece of marketing that sucks people into sequels regardless of quality.

Yeah, no shit. I mean it's become it's own beast, well and above the game itself. Yet it fuels the game...so they can produce more...so people will swallow and return for more.

[Noble Ire]

True, many times a storyline is what makes a game worth playing and keeps gamers coming back for more with sequels. As games become more sophisticated people expect them to be interactive movies as much as being fun to play.

You mean, 'marketing'. The Halo storyline, for instance, is a brilliant piece of marketing that sucks people into sequels regardless of quality.

So... you mean its a reasonably good storyline that people tend to enjoy? I agree wholeheartedly!

[Stark]

So... you mean its a reasonably good storyline that people tend to enjoy? I agree wholeheartedly!

No, I mean nerds identify with it and thus will buy anything with the brand on. Self-ruling is the best kind.

I HATE interactive movie games. RAR!

[Civil War Man]

The biggest problem with games which are so story-driven that they essentially become interactive movies is that they lack replay value. You finish it, and there's no point to continue playing because you will not be able to do anything different in a replay.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as too little story. I personally find games like Morrowind and Oblivion to be completely unplayable.

Intro character: Cool! You're here! Now we can start the game. You probably are going to be saving the world or something.
Me: I figured. So, where do I start?
Intro character: Eh....I don't know. Maybe you could try asking around one of these cities. Whatever. I'd personally just dick around here for a few hours if I were you. It's not as though there's any rush to save the world.
Me: O...kay.
Intro character: Yeah. You're going to have to walk, too, because all the transportation shit is in the main city a few miles from here.

[Stark]

Morrowind was great, but the start had very few hooks. Once you find the main quest it's all good, but before that it's totally meh.

[Darth Servo]

The story was one of the things that made the old Wing Commander games so good. That and actually being able to taunt the enemy pilots and hear them yell back at you and scream as you blew them away.

Puzzles: realistic puzzles really helped the Gabriel Knight series be great. That and Tim Curry.

[Nephtys]

I missed games that didn't tell you a thing about them when you started. Like you'd have literally no idea what their plots were, and it'd get at you slowly. In X-COM, you had a little booklet in the instructions that was 'theoretical alien combat doctrine' that had stuff on naval fire support or mass tank battles. You literally had no idea what you were going to face. Or perhaps in System Shock, where all you knew was that something went wrong. You didn't know what except for the AI involved. And so on.

Nowadays, everyone knows plots of games on the box or review, except the very end. No unexpected shifts, such as how Wing Commander 2 unfolded, or the first Metal Gear's unexpected enemies, minigames, general plot...

[Stark]

Yeah, I remember when playing Freespace meant 'wtf who are these Shivan guys, this is supposed to be the Terran-Vasudan war!' Now everything is spoiled for the marketing.

Starflight and Star Control2 were like that too: it was a great quest of discovery, because there was a huge unknown world out there that wasn't just 'Kill Paxton Fettel'. Morrowind (once you get into it) was like that, I spent more time exploring Dwemer ruins than playing the plot. Thief was such a wierd melange of styles that the presence of each bit of fantasy or steampunk was a surprise.

[Nephtys]

Yeah, I remember when playing Freespace meant 'wtf who are these Shivan guys, this is supposed to be the Terran-Vasudan war!' Now everything is spoiled for the marketing.

Starflight and Star Control2 were like that too: it was a great quest of discovery, because there was a huge unknown world out there that wasn't just 'Kill Paxton Fettel'. Morrowind (once you get into it) was like that, I spent more time exploring Dwemer ruins than playing the plot. Thief was such a wierd melange of styles that the presence of each bit of fantasy or steampunk was a surprise.

Star Control 2 was the prime example. Within 2 minutes of the game starting, you learn that Earth was conquered. Which totally changes your entire 'support Earth win the war' briefing you're given in the intro and all the other material. From then on, there's NO WAY to predict what you'd be doing, who you'd be meeting, or how to solve a lot of the problems. Or even half the game mechanics. You had to learn those on your own, and it was great. I remember meeting the VUX for the first time, and it was bloody awesome.

[Covenant]

Man I love Starflight. I still play that game from time to time. It's such delicious quality all the way around, though it gets harder and harder each upgrade cycle to make it work properly.

I think that you either go plot or post-plot, but having NO plot is a bad idea. I'd define a post-plot gamemaking style as something whose elements are so obvious and cliche that you don't need a plot at all, a game like DOOM or Unreal Tournament especially do not require any plot whatsoever because all you want to do is kill things. While several people may not feel immersed in the game, if you are able to entertain merely by value of the quality of action instead of the reason for the action, you can have a relatively fun game. If you add things like customization and so on, it becomes a lot more viable.

I agree that a lot of games have overwrought plots. Starflight had an epic storyline, but it was an epic storyline that I wasn't dragged through by a fishing hook in my balls, forced to take part in every act--prominently--with a cast of hollywood voice actors in attendance. Though graphics and power have made it easy to insert me into grand situations, sometimes that's utterly unnecessary. I'm perfectly happy being dropped down to do a simple task (like dismember some alien species' entire civilization) and being spoken to via text communications from 'The General' and occasionally given supply drops or taunted by the enemy, so long as the game itself is fun.

MGS is a fun game, and I like the story, but I realize coming into it that it's basically going to be like some kind of acid-trip inspired anime wierdness set to the beat of a wierd stealth shooter game. I find it fun, but it is ridiculous to take it too seriously. Games that do take themselves seriously as 'art' or 'storytelling' or such often put enough emphasis on making me PLAY the story (by using too many cinematics) or put too puch emphasis on injecting story into the ACTION (instead of letting me actually enjoy the adrenaline without needing to think about metaphysics and the philosophy of love on a battlefield).

I think the ideal place for storyline would be within the boring 'filler' elements of the game, or as interactive game situations. If we treated cutscenes more like 'puzzles', where my character was able to either radically change the course of the game dynamically (not just answering a few questions) or at least was able to choose different avenues to explore, or what I get to learn... then that could make it fun. Often storyline is treated as something to be inflicted on a captive audience. You get locked behind a collapsed wall, forced to listen to your radio squeal on about the collapse of society.

Bioshock hits all the wrong notes with me. I enjoy the pick-up storyline bits, but it turns storyline into an easter egg hunt (or a snipe hunt) and for the rest, turns it into something I cannot avoid. No matter how good, it makes story an annoyance. Why not let me in on the story during the parts of the game where I'm needlessly sidetracked through a variety of corridors that serve no purpose but to drain my shotgun ammo?

Or, better yet, remove the needless winding bullshit sections of these games.

One of the best, purest game experiences in my memory is Shadow of the Colossus. It had almost no story, but it had the trappings of an epic tragedy, so you could either ignore it or wallow in it. If you looked for a story, it was there, and if not, there were always some giant rockbeasts to stab. That, I felt, was a nice way to do it. Cut out the nonsense, give us the game, and oddly it was closer to 'art' or 'storytelling' or even closer to an 'role playing' experience than most games that had fifteen times the content.

[Stark]

Cov, play the Mega Drive version. You lose the special PC way the universe works and get silly combat, but it is easy to get it going on modern systems. Or the Amiga version, that's how I play Starflight 2.