next »

[LazyWaffle]

There are several different methods of telling a story through games. For example, in games like Cave Story there are several dialogue-driven cutscenes, and there's games like Star Guard that literally have the text displayed on the wall behind the player without interrupting the gameplay at all. I think which method to use definitely varies on the game; there is no "best" one. Anyway, just discuss different storytelling methods here, and talk about the ones you admire or dislike.

I'm personally very fond of interactive cutscenes, like in Assassin Blue, in which you press a series of keys to progress through the cutscene. It's not as obtrusive since you're not just flipping through dialogue boxes.

[Inanimate]

Games where the story is inferred are always way awesome. I love it when you have to interpret the story off of clues in the game.

Kirby and other simple games have a great way of doing things too; some narration, fun cutscenes. I think a game's story shown through the Kirby's Adventure intro screens would be awesome.

[Paint by Numbers]

Games where the story is inferred are always way awesome. I love it when you have to interpret the story off of clues in the game.

I absolutely love this sort of storytelling, especially when it allows the player to get several different plots out of the game. In Au Sable, for instance, all of the plot points are very cryptic and sparse, with the most lucid part being near the end. I emailed the creator of the game, Amon26, and asked him for a bit of clarification. It turned out that I had had a completely different impression of what had happened in the game than what [he was willing to reveal] was "correct".

[Captain_404]

I feel that's something games are extremely well suited to.

I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I think some of the best stories in games are, much like the nature of gameplay itself, interactive. The narrator, or game designer, provides certain bits of the story and the player fills in the blanks.

Of course, there is a marked difference between a story that leaves just the right parts untold and lazy vagueness.

[dongle]

Interesting narrative things mainstream games have done:

- Mother series - by breaking boundaries between game logic and game world, the player is often led to share reactions to things with the characters. (Left intentionally vague to avoid spoilers.)
- X-COM for using a more emergent narrative from capturing and interrogating aliens - less structured and didactic than in most games
- Metroid for having no explicit story in-game yet a dense mood
- CoD4 for all the reasons outlined in Tim's abdn review

Indie games deserve a separate topic since I think we're trying to explore narrative devices that can be generalized and repurposed.

Oh, and I'm always a fan when interaction with the game is thematically relevant (eg. Castlevania is about courage and the game is significantly easier if the player forges ahead at a rapid clip as opposed to getting psyched-out and trying to whip every enemy).

[Musenik]

Oh, and I'm always a fan when interaction with the game is thematically relevant (eg. Castlevania is about courage and the game is significantly easier if the player forges ahead at a rapid clip as opposed to getting psyched-out and trying to whip every enemy).

Excellent point!

The classic myth of strong narrative opposing interactivity should have been put to rest by now. There are alternatives. Some fit certain types of games better. I've written 2 and 1/2 story games, (the third is still in production) and each required a different approach.

What I've found is the resolution of the narrative changes according to the amount of interactivity defined by gameplay. Highly interactive story games use more abstract methods of storytelling. Less interactive story games can supply greater detail. Games with cutscenes mix these methods, for example.

 

[dongle]

Dwarf Fortress and Dead Rising excel in emergent narratives in the absence of a meaningful primary story arc.

[mirosurabu]

In my book, games that are story-driven will always be more awesome story-wise than games that have stories as a reward for playing the game (i.e. most games) and games where players form their own stories.

I really like when gameplay and all game design elements in general are all in context and working with the story.

Example: Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney

[Evan Balster]

It can't be understated how important it is the game isn't separate from the story.  Really, in our magical multidisciplinary practice of game making, that applies to art, sound, code and everything else equally well.


But anyway.  Some interesting approaches:

Storyline with main character uncovering a separate storyline as seen in Trilby's Notes - the "inner" storyline is compelling to find more of but doesn't have to be too deep, while the player gets immersed in the "outer" one without focusing on it.

Please set aside twenty minutes to play Photopia (you'll need to scroll) as it's a wonderfully done bit of interactive storytelling.  
If you play it twice you'll realize it's actually an entirely linear and immutable story, down to the order in which you enter locations in the "colored" chapters.  Your choices create meaningful reactions in the short term, but you can't save her.


As I've mentioned in another topic I'm really keen to experiment with a story structure that takes account of the slow process of player attachment/immersion in games by removing introductions entirely and revealing backstory through interactive flashbacks.

[VideroBoy]

Maybe we should keep in mind that the method of storytelling depends on not just the game, but also the kind of story you're trying to tell? For example, people have suggested games where the story is inferred. I appreciate the subtleness of this approach as opposed to, say, explicit cutscenes and dialog boxes, but I'm not sure how this would be used to convey the plot and characterization of, say, Final Fantasy (post-NES) or Mass Effect. The nature of inferred story would emphasize atmosphere over all else, such as Myst or any "art" game.

Also, I wonder if some storytelling methods are equivalent. In Half Life it is said there are no explicit cutscenes; there are just parts where you have to wait while NPCs talk at you. How different is this from any 8- or 16-bit RPG with a silent protagonist and dialog boxes, except for having to press a button to continue the dialog?

[mirosurabu]

What is an "inferred story" though?

Stories use implications all the time. When you read a story, many of the questions you ask are never explicitly answered. Rather, they are inferred by reader.

As for video games stories, I can see the appeal of implications through visual cues and gameplay, but I don't think implications through dialog are bad.

[s0]

I tend to be more interested in the setting/atmosphere in games than the plot itself. Also, I'm a big fan of "discovering" the story myself rather than have it spoon-fde to  me via cutscenes and shit. I like the approach of Metroid Prime and Demon's Souls where there's a lot of story, but most of  it is optional.

[Evan Balster]

That's something else worth noting.  Gamers are often impatient.  Making the story something they can ignore entirely (if they so desire) is often a good idea.  As someone who fixates on game stories, I think they're almost more rewarding that way.

As Gordon Freeman, I patiently stood and listened to my comrades as they spoke.  As Quote or Link, I tapped slowly through dialog boxes and talked to people I didn't need to.  As Naija, I searched the endless caverns for hints as to my past.

In a certain project of mine, the plan was that most story stuff would be explained in interactive but skippable dream sequences.  That was meant to let people avoid unwanted dialogue and avert frustration with being unable to advance the game for inability to beat a part that "didn't really happen".

[s0]

That's something else worth noting.  Gamers are often impatient.  Making the story something they can ignore entirely (if they so desire) is often a good idea.  As someone who fixates on game stories, I think they're almost more rewarding that way.

For me it's not really impatience. As I said, it's the thrill of being able to discover the story yourself rather than just "following" it. I mean, the thing is, I love backtracking in games because I love exploring worlds and the awesome feeling of going back to a place previously visited and discovering a piece of story you hadn't before (for example Scanning a new object in Metroid Prime or reading a new stone tablet in La-Mulana).

You could say I like an exploration-based "jigsaw puzzle" approach to storytelling. I'm also prone to skipping around in books when I read them, and not necessarily reading the chapters/pages in the intended order, go figure.
 

[mirosurabu]

@Cellulose:

That has a downside though (unless your perspective is broader, of course).

The story is then a separate entity that is somehow related to the game. It's just a bonus material for people who loved the game. People who didn't enjoy the game won't be interested in it. Those who didn't finish the game will miss it.

It's common sense though. Gamers are gamers who want to play games. Maybe if they finish that game and like it, they wouldn't mind discovering a bonus material to further prolong their love for the game.

However, I believe there is, or just hope there is, niche for games that are "story-driven".

In this case, story is not an option; it's a driving force. You play the game because you want to see the story. Gameplay, while not the main focus, has to be dominant, shouldn't be infrequent and must be interesting. It shouldn't be like an abstract puzzle that alienates players from the story; it must make you think about the story. It should set expectations, imply, foreshadow, reveal, attach you to characters, etc.

The game design paradigm changes so that some game design elements go out of the window and are replaced by traditional literary techniques.

Just to clarify, I don't like long cutscenes. I don't like cutscenes much. Non-interactive parts are fine though and are probably necessary for this kind of game but should be shorter than actual interactive parts. The best way to do this, I suppose, is to make minor interactive parts frequent and short enough. The major interactive parts can be as long as designer wants them.

(The format for this style of game is PW:AA as said earlier; Though that game doesn't tell the most interesting story in the world, its format is soooo good)

[Evan Balster]

PW:AA?

And for the record, I love nothing more than story-driven AND explorative games.  Either one on its own does me fine, too.  And I'm starved for good narrative gaming; perhaps I'll play some IF.


EDIT: Phoenix Wright.  Right.  Sounds like it's a well-liked game.  Maybe I should try it?

[mirosurabu]

It's probably the best thing I've played this year. (:

[VideroBoy]

I tend to be more interested in the setting/atmosphere in games than the plot itself. Also, I'm a big fan of "discovering" the story myself rather than have it spoon-fde to  me via cutscenes and shit. I like the approach of Metroid Prime and Demon's Souls where there's a lot of story, but most of  it is optional.

As I said, exploration-based storytelling would by its nature place emphasis on atmosphere, while cutscenes and dialog boxes would place emphasis on plot and characterization (please, please, please don't anyone start a debate on which emphasis is better  ). So, the method of story telling constrains the type of stories that can be told. Conveying the atmosphere in Metroid would look silly in dialog boxes, while I don't see how the story in Mass Effect can be told purely through exploration.

I suppose, if I'm writing a plot-heavy story, I may ask how would I reduce the sensation of spoon-feeding besides making all cutscenes skippable.

[s0]

However, I believe there is, or just hope there is, niche for games that are "story-driven".

Niche? As far as I'm concerned it's been the mainstream for the last couple of years, at least as far as singleplayer experiences go. Look around some of the popular mainstream gaming forums like the Gamespot or Gametrailers boards and you'll find that most people play singleplayer games "for the story" and complain when a game doesn't have one. Also I think the games themselves are becoming more and more story-centric. "Cutscene as reward" mechanics are very common these days.

I suppose, if I'm writing a plot-heavy story, I may ask how would I reduce the sensation of spoon-feeding besides making all cutscenes skippable.

One good way is to make the gameplay meaningful. Phoenix Wright has been mentioned already. That game doesn't have that much gameplay, but what's there is enjoyable, and more importantly, it's part of the story. Every (correct) action the player makes advances the plot and all the puzzles are related to plot events.

[Evan Balster]

If there's no distinction between the gameplay and the story, then there's no spoon-feeding.  There's only the wondrous mix of the two.  The more tangled together the two can be--the less distinction can be made--the better.  At least in my book.

As for the means of accomplishing this, I advocate avoiding the loss of interactivity except where it makes sense (eg, when your character is incapacitated) and maintaining a "flow" in the gameplay itself by avoiding distractions from its context.  Regarding the latter, I'm against the time-stopping inventory menu that needs to be pulled up in the heat of battle to piddle with something-or-other, and all of its wretched cousins.

Rather than starting to ramble and derailing everything, I might start a discussion about all this "flow" business at some point.