Writing in Videogames

[Khatoblepas]

So, I'm currently writing my dissertation for my animation degree, and my chosen topic was the interaction of narrative and game mechanics in videogames, since that's a topic that resonates with me.

As part of this, I wanted to get people's opinions on writing within videogames. This forum is particularily good for this, as rpgs are often story-heavy, and I think you guys have a strong grasp of narrative, as we make them all the time. :)

I am writing about the role of narrative within videogames, and how breaks within the gameplay world and the narrative world can severely negatively impact the experience as a whole. I have referred to Crimes Against Mimesis for some historical perspective in Interactive Fiction, and have contacted some game developers for an insider's perspective, but I need the end consumer's perspective, since if they don't want heavy plot, there is no need to try to integrate it as fervently as they could. No need to supply what you don't have any demand for.

I have a few questions to ask of you all, answer any or all of them if you like, and if you have any insight on narrative/mechanic interaction in tabletop roleplaying games too, I would love to hear your insight.

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

I hope to hear from anyone who has any opinion at all, it's all important to me :)

[Flickerdart]

1) The importance of narrative is inversely proportional to how quickly I can skip it. If I can't, it better be damn good. If I can, then as long as I get a quest log, it doesn't matter.

2) A game's gameplay is central, because it's a game. It's not a book. A game without good gameplay is just a book written in stupid.

3) The only times I've stopped playing games because of the narrative is in JRPGs, which seem to be allergic to quest logs, so it becomes impossible to tell where to go next for things to be happening if you forgot.

4) This is incredibly annoying. There ought to be a good reason for having a different set of abilities within a cutscene than what you have normally.

5) No. In fact, with the emergence of technologies, video game storytelling has become more and more of its own thing rather than "and now I will give you text to read". While it might certainly appropriate film techniques for cameras, everything else is different.

6) Yes, but not with the genres you presented. I would delineate the difference as being between action games like FPSes and platformers, and paced games like turn-based strategy and point and clicks. In the heat of battle, story tends to matter less than "I need to jump over those dudes and then shoot those other dudes".

[Toastkart]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?
I think narrative is very important in games, just as it is very important in life in general. People structure their lives in terms of narratives, which is, interestingly enough, related to my own thesis.

However, it does depend on what kind of game we're talking about. Not all games need to have a narrative or story to be good and interesting games.



2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
As mentioned above, it does kind of depend on what type of game we're talking about. Certain types of games don't have to have a story or narrative, or at least not a strong one, to be good and interesting games. Super Mario World, Mega Man X, and other action adventure type games in the same vein don't really require a complex story to be fantastic games.

That being said, games that purport to be very story based should be held to a higher standard. DragonAge: Origins is a good example here. It had a great setting, a number of good characters, and many of its missions had really good stories within them. But, the overall plot was an ally fetch quest, and very obviously so. Similarly, Mass Effect 2 was much the same way. Many of the individual missions had fantastic writing, but the overarching story missions were kind of lame, and the overall plot was another ally fetch quest.

The issue here, though, is that everyone has their own subjective tastes, and that's fine. I prefer more complex, and less easily recognizable stories. Others prefer staple stories from the scifi/fantasy genre done well. Neither one is right or wrong, but it's very difficult to pull both off at the same time.

Or take mmos, for example. I remember a fairly low level quest from WoW where I had to collect 8 gnoll paws, but to do so I had to kill 30-40 gnolls, even though each one had four paws. Or a farmer says to kill a bunch of these things that are infesting her fields, and you go out and do so, but as soon as you leave, they respawn in the same place over and over until the servers shut down. Both are bad from a gameplay and a story perspective, but we still play mmos that have quest structures like that.



As for the actual question itself, can't we have both? Good gameplay and good story aren't mutually exclusive. That being said, I think poor plot is easier to overlook than poor gameplay. I can play a game over and over if the gameplay is good enough, in that sense it doesn't really matter if the story is good or not.

Sometimes personal taste matters here, too. For example, Planescape: Torment is a fantastic story based game, but many people are very critical of the actual gameplay. Their criticism does have its points, and the gameplay was certainly not as complex as the Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale series, but it was still very solid, and for me, very enjoyable.



3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
Generally not the first time, but there have been plenty of games where I, on playing a second or third time, never finish because the story starts to get boring. This tends to happen moreso with Japanese style rpgs, and mostly because I have so little control over the story and characters.

Good examples of what I mean are ShadowHearts: Covenant and Legend of Dragoon. Great gameplay. Good story, but after having been through it once there's usually a point where I grow too bored to continue. Contrast this with Final Fantasy Tactics, which I've completed at least half a dozen times, if not more.



4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

On one level, I accept it without question. Level up systems, equipment systems, all the stuff that really should be running in the background of the game. That to me is gameplay that is separate from story.

On the other hand, when it irks me (and this is usually a minor irk) is when a character is paralyzed with inaction or takes a usually pretty stupid action when a smarter one would have solved the problem. I understand such things are usually done to increase drama or tension, but I find them wholly unnecessary most of the time.

A good example here is the Mass Effect series. How many times during a cutscene would tech or biotic powers (when Shepard is a class that possesses them) have been an incredibly useful solution rather than just shooting something, or worse, doing nothing? To be fair, there are probably a lot of limitations of technology going on behind the scenes where things like this just aren't possible yet. Still, I think games should work on getting to the point where this is possible.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

In some cases yes, and in others I think it can be something of a detriment. Mass Effect 1 provides a good example here. In the first mission, we're treated to a scene where Saren shoots Nihlus in the back of the head. Now imagine instead of the player seeing that scene, he just heard the gunshot, came upon Nihlus's body, and talked to the witness. Both versions of the scene would have been very effective, but the first was much more cinematic. I know the adage is 'show, don't tell', but showing doesn't always mean seeing.

That being said, there are plenty of scenes where an epic sweeping view is very effective. Camera view is also something that is very important during dialogue scenes between characters. Although I will admit I'm not very well versed in the technical aspect of that. Hard to do something like that in any other way.


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

This one is hard for me to say. On the whole, if there is an effect it is very small, and likely to be down to personal taste. In Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I don't think being able to switch between third or first person view has much to do with the story at all. Some people have a preference for what they find most comfortable, others, like me, think that each view is better for doing certain things in game.

As for more game style, that's harder to say. I don't think there's a huge difference in the way we view story going from an isometric top-down rpg and a more fully 3-d rpg. Nor do I think first person or side-scroller offer significant differences where story is concerned. Game style may introduce some limitations in how you can present your story, but I don't think they limit how we enjoy it.

[Arbitrarity]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Varies depending on genre and the specific game. I play various genres, and RPG's or Interactive Fiction tend to require better narrative to be successful examples of their genres, while multiplayer games and action games often need to stand on their mechanics. The balance between the two really varies depending on what I want to play.



2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

Varies on genre and preference. Let's take... DA2, Photopia, and Team Fortress 2. I like/liked all of these games, at different times, and for different reasons.
Photopia has no gameplay to really speak of, beyond the usual fun of trying to make sure the computer interprets your commands correctly. There aren't even any puzzles. But it's a unique story and experience, and that makes it a worthwhile game to play. Note, however that it has very little replay value, apart from finding easter eggs.
DA2, has a somewhat different plot, that is a bit less evocative in some ways. It also has fairly compelling gameplay, with decent variation and difficulty. Both of these factors make it a solid game, and it has fairly good replay value, even though there are a limited number of variations of plot and mechanics.
TF2, of course, has pretty much no plot to speak of. It has a theme, and it has a setting, but no story. However, it has well-balanced, not especially frustrating multiplayer. As a consequence, it has extreme replay value, and solidly enjoyable/challenging gameplay.



3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

I stopped playing Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim, because I reached a point where the plot wasn't very compelling, and I had overcome most of the mechanical challenges in both games. I'll probably get back to them at some point, but that will be because I'm interested in their gameplay style, and perhaps completing the plot.
The problem both games face is that they are extremely open-ended, and I'm completionist. As a result, the actual plot is stretched very thin, and ceases to be interesting. I persist for a while because of mechanical interest, but that eventually ceases to be interesting (and since these are RPG's, they also mechanically get boring after a while)



4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

Mostly don't care. It's a stylistic choice more than anything. Occasionally (in Crysis: Warhead) it bothers me, because obvious incompetence seems ridiculous. Optimally, things like "introducing the boss" would be carried out in gameplay, rather than cutscene, but that results in other difficulties (explaining why the boss is weaker at the end, balancing enormous player power growth, or maguffins. Nonetheless, Egoraptor's analysis about Megaman X's first boss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM&t=12m12s) is pretty applicable here)
The only other thing I really have to say here is that Quick Time Events are really dumb unless they're an integrated part of gameplay.



5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

Pretty sure we're all thinking about Mass Effect here.
Yes and no. The film-like dialogue and cutscene is nice, but it's also limited. Specifically, limited by genre and publisher. There are some stories you CANNOT tell with such modern technology, because you can't make a compelling AAA title out of them, or sell it to a major publisher (/get cool crowdsourced funding)
Additionally, the enormous effort required to actually create (animate, voice, camera movement) such scenes doesn't just limit what games they appear in, it also limits the number of choices and paths a game can support. Look at Baldur's Gate. There's a gigantic modding scene, thousands upon thousands of lines of dialogue (BG1 NPC pack), created by modders to flesh out characters. You can't DO that anymore. It's too technically difficult to do much more than substitute models. Few modders know a lot about 3d animation, because it's much more technically demanding, and difficult to integrate. Even DA1 (despite having voice acting), with its Baldur's Gate style dialogue system, allowed more dialogue diversity than Mass Effect, because adding or subtracting options ("I'm a mage, rarrr") is much more expected.



6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

Pacing is hard to get identical, given that each of those gameplay styles, by nature, has different pacing. Partially as a consequence of this, yes. Mechanics can play an important part in the "feel" of a story. As an example, point-and-click adventure games often make me feel helpless (especially when I don't know what I'm doing) because I have no real control over my situation. I'm safe, but I'm searching for a key to a puzzle, not improving my mechanical skill or devising tactics. In contrast, first person shooters are very skill based. When I fail at those, rather than feeling helpless, I feel frustrated, because I know that the way through is there, but I am not skillful enough to see or execute it. Since success is a alleviation of failure, this means I perceive that rescue differently. In adventure games, I feel more clever for solutions that are off-the-wall. For violent solutions in adventure games, I feel more disinterested, in that I have no actual role in such proceedings. In first-person shooters, I'd more feel relieved about completing some mechanically taxing challenge.
Also, I tend to personify FPS protagonists more than adventure game protagonists. This doesn't mean that I prefer them, it means that I expect them to behave in a certain fashion that is similar to my playstyle or how I characterize them (and adjust my own motivations to what I imagine theirs might be). Third person characters often are more separate, I distinguish their motivations from my own.

[Mx.Silver]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?


It's pretty important, not quite vital, but important. The way I see it is that most single player games should at least be aiming for some sort of narrative - although there are some exceptions. Multiplayer is different, but then single-player and multi-player games are far more different beasts than we tend to think anyway.


2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
This is a somewhat difficult question to answer, because gameplay is a fairly broad term. Hell, an aspect of gameplay doesn't even have to be enjoyable create good gameplay - combat mechanics in survival horror, for example. It really comes down to what the game in question is and what it's trying to accomplish.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I could really call it one way or the other.



3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
Yes. Syberia is probably the strongest example. Icewind Dale would probably be another, and the lack of an interesting narrative was also a contributing factor to my abandoning Diablo 2 and Sacred.



4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?
The thing is, I can't for the life of me recall a time when I heard the term 'gameplay/story segregation' used as anything other than a pejorative. Indeed, it seems largely exist as a label for inconsistencies that occur between mechanic and narrative events (e.g. both of your own examples). The only times where it hasn't been used to this is when someone is just arguing against the use of cutscenes altogether in which case it's seldom defined at all beyond, "the player doesn't feel like they're driving the narrative and I consider this to be bad".

If you are just referring to inconsistencies then sometimes they're necessary but for the most part I don't think anyone can reasonably argue they're good because they're, well, inconsistencies. I mean, would your first example be any better if the character had dodged the trap earlier in the cutscene? Or if the sudden change in competence in the second happened without explanation at the start of an in-game fight? If this is about latter then that's its own can of worms, but suffice it to say that I do consider cutscenes to have their uses, maybe moreso in some genres than other, as indeed does removing narrative control.



5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?
*cinematic feel.
No, I don't think the industry is any more sophisticated at narratives than it was 10-15 years ago. The kind of images your engine can render only change a few of the tools you use to tell the narrative, but equally the vastly higher costs of animating something at top-notch fidelity, both in time and money, apply another set of restrictions.
As to cinematic feel, I don't think it's really a benefit or a hindrance when taken on balance.



6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

It doesn't even need to be gameplay styles, any tweak in the mechanics can potentially alter the feel of a plot. The aforementioned dragon's lair scenario will present a different first-person shooter depending on the player how much the player can damage the dragon and vice-versa.

[Zevox]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?
Depends on the genre, and even the specific game. Plenty of games can more than get by without one, still presenting a great experience with just gameplay and little or no story. An obvious example would be the Mario series - even the Mario RPGs don't exactly have complicated stories, and the rest of the series is pretty much the usual old-style case of a story that is just there as an excuse for the gameplay to occur, yet those are very good games.

Others though need a good one. This would be most prevalent in RPGs and visual novel games (for example the Phoenix Wright series), which put a heavy focus on their stories. A bad story can drag one of those down quite a bit (Final Fantasy 13 being a good example in my opinion), while a great one can make for some of the best games of all.

Then there are also those that can get away with no story, but could also benefit quite a bit from a good one. Fighting games for example. The focus there is heavily on the gameplay - ask any enthusiast for the genre; there's a whole bunch of concepts and terms unique to those games that exist entirely because of how seriously tournament players take them and how in-depth even simple mechanics can get. But the characters are often little more than bodies for the players to control, with next to no personality, which can make the games feel rather sterile and lacking. A good story mode can rectify this, as in the BlazBlue series for example.

In general, I would say that the best video games would be those that combine a good story and good gameplay, but a game can still be good without a good story.


2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
Hard to say. I can definitely say that the former can be fine (though again, a game with a heavy focus on its plot put a poor plot can be dragged down by it), but I've never run across the latter. Games blessed with good plots seem to invariably come from developers competent enough to deliver good gameplay, at least in my experience. Or perhaps I have seen such games and simply stopped playing them too quickly to notice the good plot - I have given up on games that I just wasn't enjoying before, after all.


3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
Never solely because of that, no. Gameplay plays a much larger role in such decisions.


4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?
Gameplay/story segregation is often necessary, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Sometimes characters can do things that simply can't be represented in gameplay and so must be conveyed in cutscenes, or the character's personality may cause them to act differntly from what the player would do. Certainly it's impossible to completely line up a character's competency and the player's, since the competency of each player will differ.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?
Don't know whether technological advancement has any connection to narratives becoming more sophisticated or not, but sure on the film-like feel.


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.
Hm. I don't know that I can answer that without actually playing through an example of a game with the same story presented with different gameplay. It's an interesting question, but not one I see an obvious answer to.

Zevox

[SlyGuyMcFly]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Overall, I don't care if there is a story or not. I've enjoyed games with none, with little and with a lot of narrative. I do expect it to be a good story if there's a lot of it, and at least entertaining if there's little of it.

Example of no story: Minecraft. No story. Except the ones I make up as I go along. And that obviously doesn't count.
Example of little narrative: TF2. The story, such as it is, is just an excuse for two groups of guys in differently-coloured uniforms to blow each other to bits. But it's a very entertaining excuse.
Example of a lot of narrative: Mass Effect.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

gameplay>plot. I'll play a game with good story and bad gameplay a fair bit, if the story is very engaging ( Skyrim). I'll play a game with engaging gameplay and poor narrative for hundreds of hours (Pokémon). Of course, when both are great is when a game is best (TWEWY).

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

Don't think I ever have, no.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

While you do have to allow for some amount of segregation, even if just due to engine limitations, very obvious segregation like you describe is stupid and should be done away with.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

No to stories being more sophisticated, yes to having benefited from being able to have a "filmic feel".

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

It often doesn't, but it should. All too often story and gameplay completely differentiated. And this is wrong. For insatnce, pacing is something that should be dictated by gameplay. If you want it to feel urgent, put a timer on my screen. If my Soldierdude just got betrayed by his bosses you put few powerups in the level, so I know **** got serious and I'm on my own. If you want to emphasise how Soldierdude is the ultimate badass, you put large amounts of weak opponents for me to mow down.

And yes, I do think this extends to genre. An FPS consists in shooting dudes in the face. A point-and-click adventure is about thinking your way to a dudes face. A platformer is about jumping past (or on) the faces of dudes. This is going to condition who your dude is, how he approaches and solves problems, what sort of opponents he faces and I'm sure a good number of other factors.

[Makensha]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?
Not particularly. A good plot can be interesting, but for the most part I find it needless padding.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
Bad story? Don't care. Bad gameplay? Won't buy it in the first place. The one ecception (sorta) is The Path, but that really isn't much of a game at all.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
Nope.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?
It is frustrating. REALLY frustrating. If I can mow down 10 enemies in game, why would the cutscene make it seem like this is a grave situation? Bad logic as a disconnect between gameplay and narrative.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?
They try to, I suppose. The stories really aren't better, they just have more dramatic camera angles. Ultima 7 comes to mind for comparison.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.
Because of genre stereotypes, they may feel somewhat different, but it doesn't really change the plot. It is still a background story to get to the important part. The game part.

[endoperez]

I'm pretty sure you've seen this already, but go look up "magic circle" if you haven't yet. Basically, the concept of "I'm playing a game" separates people in a conceptual level from the people who aren't, affecting how you interpret certain things. It's not segregation of the mechanics and the story, exactly, but you might find it interesting.

Only a game (http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/game_narrative/) blog is also great.

[Partysan]

Before I answer, I'd like to direct you attention to a lovely little series called Extra Credits (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits). They've done multiple episodes on the subject, actually the first episode of the first season (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/bad-writing) is about (bad) writing in games. Then there's the episode about elements of greek tragedy in God of War (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/no-redeeming-value) and lastly the episode about narrative mechanics (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/narrative-mechanics), and it comes up tangentially in others. Since the episodes are only 7 minutes each I'd recommend you check it out.
One of the important points they make is that game mechanics actually convey narrative. Or don't but should.

On to the questions:
1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?
Very much so and not at all. The thing is, I play a lot of games just to have something to do for my hands and primitive brain parts while actually thinking about other stuff (or listening to it). Pure gameplay can be a lot of fun and is not neccessarily in need of a story. However there is an emotional dimension that gameplay alone can never reach but narrative can. As such, for the pinnacle of a gaming experience good narratove is mandatory.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
That very much depends on what "bad" means. A story that is poor and only a "token narrative" will not add much to a game, but also not distract from it, so with nice gameplay the game will still be fun. Very present but bad narrative however will take out the fun very quickly. In the same vein, a good story without much gameplay in between can be nice to experience, but genuinely bad gameplay will at some point make the story not worth working through it. Story is generally easier to skip than gameplay, though.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
No, I don't think so. I have stopped playing games that had bad narrative and bad gameplay and the narrative contributed to my decision, but I never actually played a game with that bad of a story.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?
Yes. There are certain levels of tolerance of course, but in general a disconnect at this level will not only cause a break of immersion but also frequently be incredibly frustrating. Without the game breaking the fourth wall and going meta about it, this is really detrimental for my experience.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?
Yes and no. We have greater potential than ever, but this doesn't mean it's being used, or being used in a good way. However having good potential is always a positive. The medium is developing. Games are still relatively young.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.
Yes, very much so. The main difference between games and other media is their interactivity. Because of this, the type of activity the player takes part in to experience it will shape the experience from the ground up. Gameplay and narrative are more heavily interwoven than most people realize.

[factotum]

1) Not at all, really. If I want narrative, I'll read a book.

2) A game with poor gameplay is like a book with half the pages missing--it's almost entirely pointless even attempting to get into it. A good game with a poor story is still enjoyable.

3) No. Stopped playing games because of frustratingly hard difficulty, but never because of poor story.

4) I dislike things like this intensely. Don't show me the character doing stuff in cutscenes that I neither know they can't do, or else look a lot more fun than the things you have me doing during the game!

5) I dislike the term "filmic" when applied to games, because it brings to my mind god-awful "interactive movies" like the 7th guest. As for the advance of technology bringing more sophisticated narrative, well, it certainly allows for more *complicated* narrative--whether it's actually more sophisticated is another matter!

6) I would argue that it's physically impossible for the pacing to be the same in the examples you give. A point and click adventure is necessarily much more slow-paced than an FPS, and this means the same story is bound to come out differently.

I suspect my total disinterest in game stories stems from the fact I've been gaming for the best part of 30 years now. Back when I started playing plotline was almost entirely nonexistent in games, and I didn't feel the lack. If there's one thing I *do* like, though, it's a story that merges seamlessly with the gameplay--Bastion is a superb example of this, with the story being narrated in response to your onscreen actions; there is almost no point in that game where you're being force-fed a story without being able to interact with anything.

[The_Jackal]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Thoroughly unimportant.


2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

The important aspect of games is gameplay. While there have certainly been examples of good narrative in gameplay, their effect on the quality of the game is entirely orthogonal to the quality of a game. No narrative, no matter how compelling, will make a bad game good. Bad narrative, while sometimes annoying, can also do little to dull the quality of a really good game.


3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

I played through RUNE, which is without a doubt among the lowest of the low for trite, lazy, bad narrative. GTA3 is a great game with a really, really trite story. The Modern Warfare games are also really weak on story, being, at their root, a pretext for testosterone-fueled killing sprees. No, the bad stories in those games didn't make the games any less fun for me. It's because I play games for GAMEPLAY. There's also lots of fantastic games with virtually no story at all. What's the narrative for Left4Dead?


4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

I feel game designers need to focus on making games, not movies. A lot of game designers seem to be frustrated film students, in my opinion. Lots of blah-blah-blah exposition and irritating hyperbolic melodrama. The only thing I want out of cutscenes is the fastest route to the 'skip' button.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

No. I actually think the golden age of game narratives was in the early days of video gaming when designers couldn't afford to clutter a game with a bunch of badly voice-acted machinima, or even worse, Quick-Time events, and instead had to keep their exposition short and punchy, and relied on a few pre-rendered, high-quality pieces of CGI to deliver the denouement of a narrative game.


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.


No, but having my druthers, plot is usually something that stands in between me and my gameplay, rather than something that enhances it. Rescuing a fair maiden from a Dragon's Lair is a mission objective, not a plot.

[LoneStarNorth]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?
There needs to be enough to establish the plot and communicate my goals, but if those goals are, say, to beat 40 or so levels and rescue the princess from Bowser, not a lot of narrative is necessary.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?
I think a game should excel at at least one of those two things, but I prefer to have both if I can.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?
I'm sure I have, but I don't remember what games they were. If the narrative was bad and the gameplay doesn't make up for it, I'll lose interest and forget about the game altogether.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?
If a character can/can't do something during gameplay, there should be a good reason why they can't/can do it in a cutscene. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a little bit but it's better game design to let the player be awesome and not just the character.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?
I think greater technical abilities raise the audience's expectations, but I'm not sure the two are directly related. Games that are graphically or conceptually simple can still have a good narrative.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.
Maybe for some people. I like lots of different kinds of games, but I guess some people only like FPS or RPGs or platformers or whatever, and will be less interested in the plot of a game outside their favourite genres. It's also hard to care about story if you just can't make any progress because you're so bad at that particular type of game.

[Cristo Meyers]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Not exceptionally. The narrative is a secondary concern to the actual gameplay portion.



2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

As I've always said: A good game with a bad story is still a good game, but a bad game with a good story is still a bad one.

I can count numerous games from multiple genres as examples of games with little to no story but are still excellent. No one is going to knock the original X-Com, for example, for it's lack of in-depth storytelling. On the other hand, I can count several games where the story was there, but the gameplay wasn't engaging (this is why I never finished Baldur's Gate 2 and Fallout).

Good gameplay should always trump the story. It's the foundation that makes the exercise a game, rather than just a half-assed storybook.


3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?


No, never.


4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

To me gameplay/story segregation is something of a necessary evil. Think about how much more complicated programming a game would be if, to use your example, every time a cutscene would call for a trap the game had to check to see if your character's Detect Trap skill was low enough for you to actually miss it. A PC is not your DM, it can't improvise when your character is too good to have fallen for "Plot Driving Trap A." Obviously it's a tad more complicated than that, but that gets to the gist of what I'm thinking...

The inverse of that, however, is worse. Making your character more competent for a cutscene is removing gameplay. You should be doing those cool things, not watching them. But, while more grating, this still falls under the "necessary evil" heading. I like to give the programmers the benefit of the doubt in how they've edited the game's content.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

I don't think our narratives have become more sophisticated, just longer and more detailed. They're still the same stories (find the crystals, kill Dracula, beat the ever-loving tar out of that other guy), they're just benefiting from more room to actually tell the story. Though that might be splitting hairs just a little there...


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

I think that in just changing the gameplay you're going to change how the plot is viewed. The plot might have the same idea, but each genre is going to present things much differently.

[Milo v3]

1) Amazingly important as without it I don't care about anything in the game.

2) Both are equally important. There is no point playing a game with good narrative if it is painful to play, and the opposite is true as well. There is no point playing a game with an horrid narrative as the game as no grip on you and it is simply mechanics and loses the esence of what art is meant to achieve.

3) I haven't but thats only because I was playing the game with a friend and we were making fun of it the whole time. The game in question was Resident Evil 5.

4) That example is a bad example of story and gameplay segregation. I think your in-character actions should have consquences in cutscenes as if you did it in a cutscene. Also I think it is fine if you can do more in cutscenes as it allows the designers to add more options to the character actions which they couldn't do if they have the ability to do it in gameplay.

5) I think in some instances they have become more sophisticated, but that is more to do with new ideas rather than new technology. Some of the most sophisticated narratives in gaming are actually older.

6) I think that how each person views the game and its narriative is dependent on that persons unique experience with it. As such the medium of how they experience it is a huge factor.

Hope that helps.

[king.com]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?


It is vital that a game has a narrative, if it doesn't I have virtually no interest in the game itself. There are exceptions where the gameplay is particularly appealing but on the whole I will not play a game unless theres a narrative binding it all together.



2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?


I would obviously prefer to have both but unless they have exceptional gameplay I really need a good narrative over good gameplay. Just about every game boils down to the same handful of actions that you repeat forever and if I don't care about what is going to happen next, there is little motivation for me to keep going (again, exceptions like some multiplayer games but this holds true for almost all single player experiences)



3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?


Yes I have stopped on many occassions, stop playing Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning most recently because of the narrative being somewhat weak (though the gameplay being extremely boring didnt help). Never finished any of the Diablo games because of the virtually non-existant narrative, could not play many well regarded jrpgs such as Final Fantasy 7 or Chrono Trigger because of an inconsistant narrative or social pitfalls breaking a potentially workable narrative



4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?


I think Deus Ex Human Revolution demonstrates how completely frustrating and idiotic this can be. If I cant do it in a game, you should not be able to do it in a cutscene. In the same regard, if a character would not be stupid enough to do something in game, he should not then do it in a cutscene.



5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?


No, I think it has ultimately harmed the story aspects as technological requirements and their vast costs in order to maintain triple A status remove the emphasis on narrative elements that once were the primary aspect that financials were dedicated to.



6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.


Yes absolutely, what you and your character/avatar do should be reflective of his goal/methods/journey and ultimately what the narrative is about. A story about destroying an army is very different in a fps format to a platformer format, one tells the personal direct approach while the second is a perspective that forces focus on the environment. Ultimately the types of stories are not always the best in either format and gametype should be tailored to the story itself.

[Axolotl]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?Not very, they're almost universally awful so if I cared that much I wouldn't play games. I will buy a game just for the narrative if I hear it's good though.


2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?Honestly I'd prefer the latter simply because they're so rare, in a vacuum I guess gameplay would win out but at the moment games need more good stories.


3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?[.QUOTE]A bunch, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Knights (1+2), Oblivion, Fallout 3. I mean they all had pretty terrible gameplay but it was the story that irritated me. I came back to a couple of them.

[QUOTE]4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?I feel it's incredibly stupid and lazy.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?No, if anything I feel that the opposite is true.


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.Well it should have a huge effect, a game where you run around shooting people in the face is telling a different story from one where you walk around solving puzzles. The gameplay should be the primary way the story is told so obviously it's going to have an impact on what the story is.

[Triaxx]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

It depends a lot on the game. I mean in an Elder Scrolls where I'm set down in a big sand box and told to go have fun, the story, as over-arching and epic as it maybe, tends to come secondary to the stories I can create just by playing. What's more, the latest one Skyrim, really tries to make fewer 'story-driven' epic moments, and instead allows you to basically create your own instead. I mean walking from A-to-B in most games you'd see certain events that they wanted you to see that would never occur if the game engine wasn't telling them to occur. So if you walked along in say Baldur's Gate, the guy fighting a wyvern, only occurs because the game told him to be there and fight that wyvern.

In Skyrim though, seeing a dragon land and start to breath fire on you, only to have a Giant take two big steps and kill it with one blow, is a totally unscripted event. But that little event, generated by the game becomes it's own little story. Instead of your character going to a tavern and commenting how he 'saw a mudcrab the other day' he can go and say 'I saw a Giant kill a dragon with a single strike.'

It's a kind of event you don't get to see from scripted interactions, because it's not thought out and planned ahead of time and so it feels more real, and natural.

On the other hand, there are some points in the story, where even what's just a scripted event DOES turn out to be epic because it goes instantly off the rails. At one point you arrive at a location, to find that the local enemies are already fighting off a dragon. And just because the dragon is there, doesn't mean they won't also fight you. So you end up either staying back to let the dragon finish them off, die, or at least thin out the their numbers. Then you charge in. The dragon is always there, so it's a scripted event, but by simply placing that dragon and the enemies, and not saying these enemies kill the dragon just to show how powerful they are, it makes the moment that much more real.

On the opposite end of the spectruum. We have games that say 'massive open world' and then don't let you explore it because they've tried to stuff a massive story in, and you eventually become afraid to open a door because it's probably going to trigger a long, winding cutscene. And worse still is seeing the cutscene, seeing enemies, and watching your character kill them. Why? Because for one, we didn't get to kill them, and for two, we know that it doesn't matter, because there will still be more enemies even though our character left nothing alive. (Or dead again.)

Still, sometimes these stories are exceptionally awesome. Unfortunately, it sometimes means that you don't want to play the game because there's too much story.

So it all depends on the game. I mean, I love having a story, but I don't HAVE to have one to enjoy the game.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

I don't need a good plot to play a game that controls well. Super Mario Bros. had almost no plot at all. (Kill mushrooms, kill turtle, save princess (In another bloody castle)). But it controlled superbly, and so I did not need any more plot.

A lot of games have amazing plots, and control like drunken cows rollerskating on sunwarmed ice. There's no point in playing the game to get through the story, because it's just NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.

I would prefer a game with acceptable story and acceptable controls, but failing that, I'd rather the game control well with a poor plot.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

No. I watch movies for the plot. (Mostly.) I don't play games for the plot. If the plot is bad, I just ignore it and focus on the fun parts. Killing enemies, collecting shiny tokens. The only time I stop playing games is when the controls are bad. Story has no effect on me.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

I'm okay if the story defines my character as being a retard. Otherwise it just kind of feels like I'm being cheated the opportunity to control the outcome. I'm here to save the world, and that means going against what others have planned. And frankly, that includes the developers. A lot of time they dont' seem to see the similarities between the main villain trying to control something. Be it a kingdom, the world, or just the main character, and the player and character fighting against it, with the developers trying to control something, and the player fighting against it.

The defining characteristics of a character... Link for example, is that he's all about standing up and defying what he feels is wrong. Gannondorf wants to take over the world? Link is not going to lie down and take it. He's stood up and begun fighting against whatever terrible fate Ganon has attempted to force on to everyone else.

If you want to have my character lose a cutscenee fight, that's fine with me. I'm OKAY with that. But make sure it's because the villain is amazing. Not because my character is lame. I mean, if the character loses because the bad guy countered his most powerful technique, that's great. That's great, it's a motivation, and a driving force to go seek out a more powerful technique. If he loses because he couldn't use his sword to bounce away a ball of magic, and I've just spent thirty minutes playing magic ball tennis, I'm not motivated to go find the tennis racquet sword of awesome, because I think my character is too stupid to use it anyway.

Windwaker got this right. The first time you meet Ganon, you lose. Not because Link forgot to do the simplest thing, but because he simply couldn't be defeated without the Mastersword. (Sword of Kicking Evil Ass). It show cased that it wasn't that Link was incapable, or stupid, he just didn't have what he needed, so there was an impetus to go through the effort to Get what he needed.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

Yes and no. Skyrim is a good example. The cinematic feel of the game makes playing in the world feel more natural. I've been told I'm playing an epic game. And the cinematic feel makes it feel like I really am playing an epic game.

On the other hand we have Crysis. Yes, the graphics are beautiful. But when it comes to story telling, it feels like a JJ Abrams film and that's not a compliment. I'm sure that some where in there, deep inside, it's trying to tell a provacative insightful story, with twists and turns and moments of joy and sorrow. I don't know though, because all I can see are short flashes of pretty explosions and confusing sections where I don't understand things. All interspersed with explosions I caused. There's probably an epic story buried under it all, but the game didnt give me enough explosives to blow it open to find out.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

Somewhat. The problem is things that make sense for one character might not for another. I mean point and click guy and possibly platformer guy might have a problem with the guards around the dragon's lair preventing you from getting to the princess. First person shooter guy is going to walk up, say hi and jam his sword cinematically into their intestines, and fish around for a vital organ.

Inside, Platformer guy and first person shooter guy will have to go around the locked door to find another way to the dragon. Point and click guy can just carefully examine the room, find the key behind the bush and then sit and read his book while the other two catch up.

First person and point and click guy will probably be stymied somewhat as to how to get across a room full of lava. Platformer man though, can take a running leap and bounce across the stones that are always inexplicably sticking up from lava like a jack rabbit on meth and be across before FPS guy has gotten his freeze ray out of his pocket.

The dragon itself, provides a couple of different challenges to different characters. FPS guy will probably have a direct solution. Kill the dragon by jamming his sword in it's eye balls and wiggling it around until the brains are completely scrambled.

Platformer might not even bother with defeating the dragon. He could duck behidn a pillar to avoid it's breath, bounce across a couple of ledges, grab the princess and jump down the exit chute.

Point and Click might see the sleeping dragon, Climb the Wall, Knock down the Stalagtite, and Impale the Dragon's head with it. (And possibly FPS guy if he's in the way.)

Ultimately, the game should define the Narrative, not the other way around.

[Pronounceable]

1) For every game that's ever been made except for tetris, it has to exist. Otherwise why would I bother with this crap? Not that it has to be good or original or something, but there absolutely must be a reason why I'm shooting dudes/punching dudes/collecting dudes.

2) Games are not books. Games are not movies either. While that's not an excuse to make a crappy narrative, it's a lot more forgivable than crappy gameplay. But unless both are unterrible, it's destined to be a bad game.

3) I don't leave games unfinished, unless it's terribad to the point of not even getting out of tutorial.

4) When it's not blatantly breaking all immersion like that example, it's fine. Alas that sort happens very rarely.

5) No they're getting crappier by the year. As the amounts of invested money skyrocket, the amount of creativity and originality is hitting rock bottom. Exact same disease that infects Hollywood, only games are aiming to match the terribad action movie standard which is already the lowest functional level of Hollywood "narrative". Can tech be used for good? Yes. Will it? No.

6) No. Gameplay and plot poke different parts of brain.

[Winter_Wolf]

My responses to:
1) Good narrative is fairly important if it's an RPG. If it's a fighter/shooter/action/racer, then not so much to not at all.

2) I'm unlikely to play a game if the gameplay sucks. Something that I've noticed recently in certain RPGs is the narrative gets in the way of the gameplay. The long cutscenes and/or the sheer number of them get really irritating when they happen every after every five minutes of actual play time. NWN 2 is guilty of this.

3) Well, no. Per 2, I've stopped playing because I was sick of the story freaking custscenese getting in the way of my game. Action adventures, anything that requires twitch reflexes, things like that. Some RPGs just go nuts and it needs to be stopped.

4) If the designer fails to map out the cutscenes to allow for all probable outcomes of player actions, maybe they should either start the game proper after the action in the cutscene, or just skip the freaking scene. It's important to me that whatever movie I'm forced to have interrupt my gaming matches what I just did.

5) No, I do not. In fact let met just say it: if I wanted to watch a film, I'd go watch a film. When I want to play a game, I'd be THRILLED if the designers would just allow me to SKIP THE CUTSCENES. I'm totally okay with text bubbles that I can read at my own speed/mash buttons to get past it as quickly as possible. Sometimes I like to watch, but with my free time being more and more limited these days, having to watch mandatory 5-10 minutes of not-playing time pisses me off, especially when I have to keep watching right before the part where I keep dying.

6) Absolutely. The story can be pretty thin in most cases. Mario's schtick comes to mind. PnC adventures need to have a bit better story to keep my interest.

[Icedaemon]

1) To me, the presence and amount of narrative is less important than the quality thereof. A game can have minimal narrative and still be good - see Unreal Tournament, where there was virtually no narrative at all save some flavour text. However, bad narrative - clumsy plots and cheesy characters in a story-driven game will cause me to quit in disgust about as often as bad gameplay mechanics.

2) To sum up, all games need good gameplay. Not all games need story and bad writing is generally worse than none whatsoever.

3) Yes, but I can't remember what it's name was. Then again, I tend to steer clear of anything with a bland 'good vs evil' plot these days, unless it's a well-executed parody.

4) Gameplay-story segregation is very important for me, to the point that if there is a revival mechanic, I would see it as more fair if enemies would be allowed to use it. I prefer minimal or unobtrusive cutscenes if they are necessary.

5) Yes and no. A filmlike game would have one possible path, one possible plot. That means no re-playability whatsoever and therefore is unlikely to be good value for money. However, modern-day open-world settings generally offer more opportunities to forge my own plot than ever before.

6) Yes. Different genres will practically force one to have different takes on the same plot.

[Eldariel]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Depends on the game. There are games carried by the awesome narrative; usually single-player role-playing epics like Baldur's Gates, Fallouts and so on. Those games absolutely live and die by the narrative.

Then there are games where I don't give a damn; take for instance Diablos, Counter Strike or League of Legends. I'm vaguely aware there's a story but that's not the reason I play those games.

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

Game needs to have a reasonable playability for me to be able to enjoy it; if I'm playing a game, the "playing"-part needs to be at least tolerable, after all. However, take for instance Planescape: Torment; the interface is god-awful but the story is awesome enough to make it worth enduring. So it's possible for a great story to carry mediocre gameplay into a cult classic status at the very least.

Plenty of games I play for the gameplay where story is secondary; I generally spend less time on those games and get less immersed in them but I they make for decent past-time especially when playing with friends, and they generally lend themselves better to competitive playing too.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

I'll stop playing a game if the whole of gameplay and narrative is too poor. I've yet to stop solely because of narrative because as per #2, good gameplay can still generate an enjoyable experience if it's nailed to the T.

However, if we're talking about an RPG for example, I'd be quick to quit if the plot gets too stupid. I've had near calls with Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dales. I actually did quit NWN2 though only due to a combination of the story being boring cliché bull**** with eminently forgettable characters (aside from Bishop, Neeshka and Khelgar, who while cliché were at least slightly interesting) and the game being a buggy POS.

But that was not due to story alone but it was also 'cause I basically ran into a game-stopping bug in a save file and my last save was god-knows-where.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

The character should be the same in the gameplay and the story. Otherwise I'm calling bull**** and the immersion is broken. Worst is if the character is incredibly awesome in cutscenes and ****ty useless in gameplay; I wanna play the awesome, not see it.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

There are games to this effect; take Max Paynes or Mass Effects for instance. Then there are games that go in a completely different direction. Far as I'm concerned, it's good to have both, film-like, narrative-heavy games and then the opposite.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

To a degree; I'd say I have different expectations for different genres which color my view of the plot. Given I find there are good games without plots, for many genres with proper execution (that is, good gameplay) I might ignore the plot if it's bad entirely.

[Craft (Cheese)]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

The answer to this question heavily depends on how we define narrative: Is narrative just the scripted dialogue scenes? Are we judging games just by the stories that they tell, or by the stories that they evoke?

Someone above mentioned Left4Dead as a game with "no narrative" but actually Left4Dead is filled to the brim with narrative of the second type. What would L4D be without the witches, the zombies, the all-seeing AI director? Left4Dead *creates* narratives rather than tell them.

Or, here's another, possibly better example: Skyrim. Yes Skyrim tells stories in the traditional way with its scripted quests, but it breathes narrative through every pixel. The lore and interactions among the townsfolk are absolutely littered to references to deeper relationships and history that, for the most part, are left to the player's imagination. Lore-junkies like me absolutely adore The Elder Scrolls series because it keeps us awake at night speculating about things like what Madesi's wife really spent all that money on.

As for the answer to your question, I think the first type of narrative is not only unimportant but directly poisonous to gaming as a whole. Video games are not film. Not only are games a poor channel for expressing traditional narrative (for a whole HOST of reasons too complex to get into here, most important of which being the player's direct involvement with the story's progression: If the viewer doesn't get a joke in a comedy, the film reel doesn't spontaneously combust and stop them from ever seeing the rest of the work), but attempting to adapt games to be a better channel for these traditional narratives is strangling the opportunity for exploring the second type in its crib.


2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

I actually think this is a wrong question. The problem is in that phrase, "good gameplay." What does it even mean? We could say that good gameplay invokes fun, but there's more than one sort of fun. The best way to define "good gameplay" is, I think, that the game can consistently instill a certain set of emotions within the player, whether the slow contemplation of a puzzle game or the adrenaline rush of an action game. It intuitively makes sense that a game where the puzzles can be solved without doing much thinking is a bad puzzle game, and a game that puts you to sleep is a bad action game.

This definition exposes why this question is wrong: Game mechanics are only a part of what about a game can trigger emotions in people. The narrative, tone, aesthetics... etc. are all woven together with the game mechanics in ways that aren't really easily separable.

Let's compare two games as an example (or rather, one game and a genre of games): World of Goo, and old text-based adventure games like the ones from Sierra. They both have the same core engagement: You're given a number of widgets that you have to put together in the right away. Why is the former a fairly successful, critically-acclaimed game while the latter is an almost completely dead genre?

Tons of reasons, but let's focus on the one most relevant to my point:

World of Goo provides a consistent framework in which its puzzles take place. All goos and terrain types that look the same act the same, and the goos obey something resembling physics that is, again, mostly consistent (save a few level gimmicks here and there). The game's interface and level environment unambiguously and naturally communicates a correct mental model of the full possibility space to the player, where every action has a clear consequence. The puzzle the player has to face is to imagine the (potentially quite long) string of actions and consequences needed to arrive at the pipe.

In contrast, text-based adventure games work with an arbitrary collection of nouns and verbs with mostly arbitrary function. There's no way to express the potential consequences of each action other than simply attempting said action and seeing what happens, and often the model even has trouble communicating the conditions for success. The result is the infamous "Moon Logic Puzzles" where the intended interactions between the nouns, verbs, and the environments are extremely different from the information the player received, making the "puzzle" impossible to solve without trial-and-error or a strategy guide. Moon Logic Puzzles fail to challenge you to think because there's zero thinking involved in brute force solutions.

This disparity is due to one critical factor: Graphics. Because World of Goo has graphics, it can take advantage of consistent visual cues and spatio-physical analogy to provide information to the player, making the moon logic puzzle much easier to avoid. Take away the visual analogies and representations from World of Goo to focus purely on the "mechanics" means this information channel is severed and the mechanics fall apart.

Of course this is only focusing on the pure utility function of World of Goo's graphics, and doesn't even begin to go into the whimsical setting and tone, the visceral, satisfying reward of manipulating the goos... It goes on and on.

With this in mind you can begin to see what kinds of possibilities there are for game narratives and game mechanics to complement and enhance one another, rather than bump heads and stumble over each other as they do in most games.


In short, Think of game narrative like a taco's tortilla shell. A taco without a tortilla shell isn't just a bad taco, it's not even a taco at all. In a well designed game all of its elements, including mechanics, complement one another to form a coherent experience that invokes a particular set of emotions in the player. Ignoring one or more of these elements in favor of the others will make the game's other elements weaker, not stronger.


3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

This is only a half-example, but Sonic Rush. The cutscenes were all unskippable and were so insipid that I resorted to downloading a save file off the internet with all the levels unlocked so I could just play any level as much as I wanted in any order. Much, much better that way. As a bonus, I got to skip those awful bossfights too!


4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

Yes. Characters having different powers in cutscenes from in the actual game (and for that matter having different powers depending on which side they're on) is a textbook example of the narrative butting heads with the mechanics.


5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

I don't think narratives have become more sophisticated because of increases in technology, with a possible exception of games like TES or Mass Effect where making every NPC sufficiently unique in appearance would have been impossible with older technology. However, that doesn't mean I don't think increased technology can't be of help. This is a huge topic to cover, so I'll stick to a single area: Voice acting. Voice acting (when done well) can help immensely with immersion and adding human quality to a character. It is not, however, without its drawbacks.

1. Voice acting when done poorly (and it unfortunately is almost universally done poorly in video games) completely negates this humanizing element by exposing the character as just that: A character. Done REALLY badly, and it can dehumanize a character even worse than text boxes!

2. Voice acting is expensive, which reduces the total amount of dialogue that can be in a game. Big problem for games with tons and tons of talking like Dragon Age or Skyrim. Even good voice acting can suffer from the "everyone has the same voice" problem if there are more characters than voice actors, which again dehumanizes the characters.

3. Voice-acted lines must be prerecorded. This is a bigger problem than it sounds because it makes dynamic dialogue generation, and all the wonderful possibilities that come with it, impossible. Mundane examples of the effect of this are as simple as how voice-acted characters seem to be allergic to calling you by your name unless the character has a fixed name. This is also the reason why Skyrim's radiant quests have the dialogue from the quest-giver being extremely scarce on details, leaving the player to have to check the (text-only) quest log.


All three of these problems, however, can be solved with good voice synthesis technology. The real question is if game developers will have the vision and the courage to use this technology once they finally get it.


6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

Of course! Game mechanics are the lens through which the player sees and interacts with your narrative. (The worst lens being "Put your controller down and get some coffee for this three-hour cutscene!") The same narrative placed through the lenses of three different game mechanic sets would feel radically different, definitely not even the same game.

[SephlidJam]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?


It depends what you mean by narrative. If narrative is simply the sum of the cutscenes, text boxes and dialog in a game, then narrative is not important: many of the best games - and almost all of classic games - had little to no narrative. (To wit: Classics such as the original Zelda and Mario games, or the ever-popular TF2)

However, I feel that using that definition of narrative is doing games a disservice. True, there's a lot of plots that only make sense when you have ENDLESS NARRATION, but at the same time? The game-play itself should form a cohesive narrative. I know that I've, from time to time, tried in my head to build a story out of the actions I've taken in, say, a Mario game. Or imagined that my Pokemon battles were much more epic that the small amounts of text and animation show.

Narrative is more than just what we consider to be the "story" - narrative should spring from every action the player takes in a game.



2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?


Define "Poor Plot" for me. There's a difference between a lack of plot and a poorly designed one. TF2 has almost no plot, and yet the experience is phenomenal. However, a poorly written plot that is supposed to be a cornerstone of a game? That's an issue.

And, as many have already said, there should never be an excuse for poor gameplay. If the game mechanics are bugged, not only does the player get frustrated, but also, it snaps them out the immersion.



3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?


Not that I can recall? I mean, I've stopped playing a lot of games, but I can't really ever specifically quitting because of the narrative.

Note that most of the games I've "quit" are games like Minecraft or classic arcade-style games, where there is no defined "end point". And so, to me, they feel incomplete.



4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?


If the character can do it in a cutscene, the player should be able to do it in gameplay.

If the character can do it in a cutscene, the player should be able to do it in gameplay.

If the character can do it in a cutscene, the player should be able to do it in gameplay.

That said, a character being less-competent in a cut scene may make sense if there's a motivation behind it. Take the example of the trap given. If the character is walking back, distracted by their love interest, and falls into the trap because they weren't paying attention, this makes sense. After all, the player is not the character, and the player (most likely) would have noticed the trap and dodged it a second time. Cut scenes should be used for instances when the freedom provided by giving the narrative into the hands of the player doesn't make sense - and should most likely only be used sparingly.



5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?


Not really. To me, the ULTIMATE GRAPHICS AND STUFF isn't substance. Can high quality, realistic graphics add to an experience? Hell yes! But I feel that you can still have a compelling narrative without graphics.



6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.


Um, yes? To me, this isn't even a question. 90% of a game's narrative should be expressed through gameplay. And having a different style of gameplay completely changes how we view the narrative. With platformers, the character needs to be more mobile vertically, and there's more of an emphasis on exploring and looking for puzzle solutions outside of the standard realm.

Where as in an FPS? SHOOT IT! SHOOT IT DEAD! BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Changing the style of play necessarily changes how the narrative functions, because the style of play dictates the narrative.

tl;dr: Narrative is more than just cut-scenes and dialog. It's the story that unfolds all around you as you play a game, from the middle of a boss fight, to running around the overworld, to finally finding that last hidden collectible. There's a story behind all of those events, and THAT story is the game's narrative.

Oh, and it can also include cut scenes and stuff too. But you don't need those.

[ARTHAN]

The fact a lot of people forget here is to categorize two completely different parts of a gameplay; the story mode and the multiplayer/skrmish/deathmatch/etc. mode of gameplay.

* In the story mode (or games with story mode only) the narrative/scenario/storyline is extremely important, manytimes more important than gameplay itself! A bad or no story will never match the experience of a good or excellent one in this gameplay style. I have cathed myself to complete the singleplayer story of several games, in which I had became bored of their gameplay, just because their story was so amazing that couldn't let me go!

* On the other hand, during other modes (like multiplayer or survival) story is far inferior in comparison with gameplay. Here is all about gameplay, hands down.

[warty goblin]

* On the other hand, during other modes (like multiplayer or survival) story is far inferior in comparison with gameplay. Here is all about gameplay, hands down.

As somebody who put more hours into Enemy Territory: Quake Wars than can really be humanly explained, the two don't have to be as mutually exclusive as people often think.

[Trazoi]

1) How important is narrative within a videogame to you?

Depends on the game type and whether the game is aiming to tell a story.

Narrative is one of the gameplay elements that a game uses to be compelling. If a game merely uses a story as a framing device to be able to throw in a lava level after the ice level, then that's fine as long as that's what the game treats it as and keeps the transitions short. Howver if the game is attempting to tell a story - and pretty much every game with long cutscenes falls into this category - then the narrative is a key elements and is therefore important.

Although it's important to note that "narrative" doesn't just mean "long non-interactive cutscenes". :smallbiggrin:

2) If a game has a poor plot but good gameplay, is that preferable to a game with poor gameplay but a good narrative? Or are both equally important?

Good narrative should become integrated with the gameplay. If you mean "does great non-interactive storytelling make up for poor interactive gameplay", then I'd have to say: usually not, but maybe, because it's still not that clear cut. Console RPGs for example have terrible gameplay - they're usually all turn-based random encounters about selecting attack-attack-attack-magic-attack-attack-heal with strategy that usually amounts to "use the fire magic on the ice guys". But they're still compelling when they get the pacing right - grinding through regular monsters is okay in short bursts because it's a break from the storyline and the big boss fights.

So again, the answer is "it depends", because there's never a clear cut line between gameplay and narrative.

3) Have you ever stopped playing a videogame because the narrative was too poor? If so, what was it?

I usually stop playing when the game is no longer compelling. I'm a sucker for reading even the most awful books all the way because I want to know how the story ends. The most common cause for me to stop a story is because it's boring because nothing is happening. And that can happen quite a lot in games due to those pacing issues. The common example would be the RPG which has too much grinding through low level monsters to get to the next narrative point. So again it's the fusion of the narrative with gameplay letting it down - when the game is relying on narrative as a key pull to enjoyment and then stalls the story the whole thing falls flat.

4) How do you feel about gameplay/story segregation? Examples: You dodge a trap in game, and later in a cutscene, the character falls for the same trap. And the inverse, a character suddenly being far more competent in a cutscene than his in-game actions would imply. Should a character be as competent in their actions as the player is?

It's can be annoying and a sign that the writer and level designers aren't fully communicating, but I'm willing to let some of it slide as part of the segregation between interactive gameplay and linear storytelling elements.

It can be stretched too far. More competent in cutscenes can usually be handwaved away, but what annoys me most is when the protagonist game character is far less competent in a cutscene than the interactive sections. Like surrending to three enemies when they were capable of effortlessly mowing down dozens in the game section beforehand.

5) Do you feel that with growing technical abilities in game engines, narratives in games have become more sophisticated as well, and have benefited from a more filmic feel?

Game narratives have become more sophisticated, but IMO it's due to the passage of time and writers/developers becoming more used to the medium. "Filmic feel" isn't here or there - they've been cribbing off cinematography for years; it can be done well and can be done really badly. I'm against however the perception that "good game storytelling = just like my favourite films/shows" because that traps into the thinking that game storytelling should be linear and told with cutscenes with maybe the occasional quick-time events. I don't mind games that are like this, but I don't think this should be held up as the pinnacle of what game storytelling should be.

6) Do you think that different gameplay styles affect how we view the same plot? For example, rescuing a fair maiden from a dragon's lair, presented in platformer, first person shooter, and point and click adventure game style, with the only differences in the presentation being how the game plays. Dialogue, pacing, and aesthetic remain identical.

Yes. :smalltongue:

Are you asking is the story different if you splice different types of gameplay in with the same fixed cutscenes? Well yes, because the gameplay is telling the story too. Game storytelling should never be "go play some game stuff, and now here is the non-interactive part where we tell the story." The game development extension to the rule "show don't tell" is "do don't show". Let the player experience as much of the story as possible through the core gameplay.

[Triaxx]

The world slips a bit closer to it's end as I agree with Warty...

I like multiplayer, usually, but I enjoy it more when there's a story to it. I'll point to Crysis, where the multiplayer had if not a story then at least a REASON I was trying to take checkpoints. I had to knock them out to shut down the insta-kill turrets.

I admit hating escort missions, but I figure they'd be more fun if you had game where the multiplayer was an escort mission. I seem to recall seeing one that had something like it, with a train, but I imagine taking a big wasteland ala New Vegas and having players driving not only escorts, but whatever was being escorted. And the other side was trying to stop/board whatever it was.

Sadly it'd be fun only on LAN's where you can get up and break your chair over the guy being a jerk and driving off to die alone so you fail the mission. Because there's always one online. ALWAYS.