Video Games Are Better without Stories

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
As someone who appreciates other forms of art that are powered by narratives such as movies and books, I can’t agree with this guy at all, but I know there are others like him out there—just look at all the successful multiplayer games out there, many of which lack any kind of story. Personally, I feel that the absence of relatable characters or an engaging narrative makes the entire experience soulless, but what do you think? I find this author’s argument ridiculous, actually, since he is questioning why games even bother telling stories when the creators could just do it in another medium. Why not, I say.

Players and creators have been mistaken in merely hoping that they might someday share the stage with books, films, and television, let alone to unseat them. To use games to tell stories is a fine goal, I suppose, but it’s also an unambitious one. Games are not a new, interactive medium for stories. Instead, games are the aesthetic form of everyday objects. Of ordinary life. Take a ball and a field: you get soccer. Take property-based wealth and the Depression: you get Monopoly. Take patterns of four contiguous squares and gravity: you get Tetris. Take ray tracing and reverse it to track projectiles: you get Doom. Games show players the unseen uses of ordinary materials.
 
Games with good storylines is what brings me back to play them again and again over time
 
When I was younger, I preferred getting together with friends and playing 1st person shooters. Didn't care as much about the story line.

Now, I prefer the story line, the back story etc. Would rather play an easy game with a good story than sitting around shooting at people.
 
Games with stories last. Everyone KNOWS Kotor. As much fun as the new DOOM was, who talks about the game anymore other than as an AMD tech demo?

People with short attention spans want games with no story, yet are also the first to jump to a brand new game the second one comes out - perpetually chasing the "shiny" object. When they finally learn to slow down in life, they come around and appreciate the value of a good story.
 
Eh, I think videogames are better without a crap ton of uncontrollable cutscenes. Video games are suppose to be about control/choice. If I'm not doing either...then, I feel the game is failing.

I talk about Doom all the freaking time. It was my favorite game last year. I never got off the ship in KOTR.
 
I talk about the new Doom all the time but never even think of KOTOR.

I am fine with story lines, it's just that story based games tend to suck in terms of gameplay. The opposite is also true. Can't think of any exceptions, really.
 
The Atlantic, where they smell each other's farts...

Ian Bogost, who declared gamers dead nearly nine years ago in an article proclaiming video games should have more messaging and story...

Into the trash it goes.
 
I talk about the new Doom all the time but never even think of KOTOR.

I am fine with story lines, it's just that story based games tend to suck in terms of gameplay. The opposite is also true. Can't think of any exceptions, really.

To be fair, Doom was released last year, KOTOR came out 14 years ago....
 
I like a nice story line like the Metro series and I also like pure multiplayer mayhem like Unreal or Quake.

Pretty sure most other peeps feel the same way. Life is best with a truck AND a car. Not one or the other.
 
Games can be more than the story, and should be. Games can be fun with or without story, and should be.

Today's video games are terribly basic, they usually focus and excel in one area to the exclusion of all others.

To say DOOM is better than KOTOR and vice-versa is just asinine, they are different styles of games that deliver different experiences. I have the new DOOM and while its fun, I played it for 2 hours and put it down, haven't touched it since. Its a good game, but it just isn't for me, like KOTOR isn't for others.

I see games as still being very much in their infancy, things are still split firmly on genre lines because movies. Cinematic direction is almost none existent in games, basic film techniques like scene changes, shot counter shot, background motion, and quality facial animation are only just making their way into games.

There is so much room for growth in video games.

As an aside I would encourage anyone to watch Every Frame a Painting and start thinking about how these things can also apply in the game world.
 
The author has been summarily denounced in the comments on The Atlantic.

I too will replay story driven open world types of games usually to see what I missed the first time or to see if other outcomes are possible. Loved the ME trilogy (except for the finale) and enjoyed very much Fallout NV and Fallout 4.

A book or movie has a single linear story with a single outcome, where is the real value in investing time and effort revisiting the material.
 
Is this a suggestion to tell developers to keep on being lazy? Or is this satire?
I can't tell.
 
The author must have a lot of time on his hands. We all want to walk away from a game with a story, memories, and strong feelings. The chance of that happening after 30 hours in a pure sandbox is far less likely than in a game with a strong background story, scripted events and lore. Just as you can have your own stories when playing MMOs if you're in a guild, have invested real time to make friendships and have adventures. But that's a huge time sink that most people have progressively less of as they get older. The author can be free to live in his parent's basement and extract his 100% out of his sandboxes, but I don't think I can agree with him.
 
I enjoy playing story driven games like the witcher, mass effect or the last of us. They only last for some weeks though, as I would never replay any of them, the same way I (almost) never watch movies more than once. The games that I truly love, and can play seeming forever without getting bored, are the multiplayer ones without any meaningful history, like fighting and kart games, and in rare cases arcadey single player games like Mario.
I am fine with story lines, it's just that story based games tend to suck in terms of gameplay. The opposite is also true. Can't think of any exceptions, really.
I would mention Bloodborne. But i cant even beat this game, so...
 
I talk about the new Doom all the time but never even think of KOTOR.

I am fine with story lines, it's just that story based games tend to suck in terms of gameplay. The opposite is also true. Can't think of any exceptions, really.

I felt Witcher 3's game play was good-great, same with Batman Arkham series. Both are story rich experiences.

Also ME3 and MEA's combat is very solid, fun and with certain combo's I have more fun being a badass space marine than I do in DOOM.

There is still a gap, but it is closing.
 
Story or no story..?

47bed14db64592f5a36711363a525b39_82733-why-not-both-meme-5lvd-why-not-both-memes_400-400.jpeg


Most games I've been playing nowadays though have been story-driven games; Uncharted series, The Last of Us, MGS5, newer Tomb Raider games. But I'm a full-time worker, student and father, so I don't have much time to spend playing online games with friends (who are also as busy as I am) for hours at a time. My son likes mindless shooters and racing games mostly though and I can't fault him as I was the same way when I was his age. But I eventually came around and tried out the original MGS, Silent Hill, and Zelda games and never looked back.
 
I find the story often gets in the way of gameplay. I don't want to be told what to do next, I want to figure it out for myself.
 
It's two different categories of games to me, can't really compare them. I remember enjoying Mass Effect just as much Counter-Strike 1.6 but in two completely different situations.
 
The author has been summarily denounced in the comments on The Atlantic.

I too will replay story driven open world types of games usually to see what I missed the first time or to see if other outcomes are possible. Loved the ME trilogy (except for the finale) and enjoyed very much Fallout NV and Fallout 4.

A book or movie has a single linear story with a single outcome, where is the real value in investing time and effort revisiting the material.

I'd argue that game is always allowing choice/control. Thus, it's different than something like MGS, or Uncharted. Where control doesn't really exist.

I haven't read the article yet, but I gather that his points probably aren't terrible...just not well thought out. I'm going to assume he doesn't tackle what the language of games should be, but instead, what his preference is.
 
I don't know, I just read this article and the one thing I am pretty sure of is that I am not the intended audience of such an article.

And what the hell is a "Potemkin village"?

But I can't help thinking that the author is missing something entirely.

I play some games that have a story, or an environment for my story. I also play some games that have no story, just an environment in history or fantasy.

But when I play from within a story, I don't do it to be "told a story". I do it to become "part of the story" no matter how linear it might be. For a few hours, I can be someone else and that is the escape I am looking for with those types of games. For a few hours, I want to become the Lone Wanderer or whoever it is I am supposed to become. If the game world doesn't adjust interactively and the story adapt to my actions and choices so be it. Fallout 4 was beaten up by many because choices didn't really seem to change the final outcomes. I didn't care because for me it was all about a few hours escape and the journey was fun enough for me.

Add in how friends sharing a game adds in a new dimension and many things are possible. But have you guys noticed that in a story driven game, a friend becomes a distraction that yanks you out of the make believe. But in a story=less game, the friend always seems to belong, as in a first person shooter. Those other peeps you are playing with start to come alive as you run down the streets together and frag other players. GRAW2 was awesome for this, the blend was excellent in that game.
 
I'd argue that game is always allowing choice/control. Thus, it's different than something like MGS, or Uncharted. Where control doesn't really exist.

I haven't read the article yet, but I gather that his points probably aren't terrible...just not well thought out. I'm going to assume he doesn't tackle what the language of games should be, but instead, what his preference is.

His points are reductive and don't make room for games to evolve, basically saying that other mediums do x better so why compete. The article is also really approaching TLDR.
 
I think the story based games get a following for that reason. However a lot of games without stories are better to just pick up and play. Something like duck hunt comes to mind. Or the original contra
 
I opened the story to give you the click. I play single player 98% of the time and couldn't disagree more with the author.

Both games have their place.
Better without a story?

It's like saying a hotdog is better without catsup.
 
I talk about the new Doom all the time but never even think of KOTOR.

I am fine with story lines, it's just that story based games tend to suck in terms of gameplay. The opposite is also true. Can't think of any exceptions, really.

Star Control 2
Starcraft 2
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

Just to name a few with both great stories and great gameplay.
 
To be fair, Doom was released last year, KOTOR came out 14 years ago....

Let's make it even fairer: I still play RTCW and never even think of KOTOR.

What I mean is RPGs don't play well to me. I am not a huge fan of the typical clunk
 
I think Multiplayer gamers are into competition and the sporting aspects of gaming....they're there to win, usually (they play on teams, they try to exploit the limitations of the game to 'win' and so on). I think SP gamers show up for a movie...there's no winning or losing, there's the journey, the experience. I'm into gaming for the journey in 2017. Back in 82, I didn't need Asteroids or Omega Race to give me a backstory beyond the cabinet art.

I play Titanfall on Xbox One when I need a 'pointless shooter' on a friday night when I'm trying to decide between sleep and some random episode of a show on Prime or Netflix....but I never once left work and said "Damn, can't wait to play me some Titanfall! LEVEL UP!".
 
Let's make it even fairer: I still play RTCW and never even think of KOTOR.

What I mean is RPGs don't play well to me. I am not a huge fan of the typical clunk

But to be fair you're just one person. I may not talk/think about KOTOR, but I still play Baldur's Gate, Earthbound, and some of the old Final Fantasy games from time to time. I also just got through playing the original Mass Effect Trilogy, which was fantastic only because of it's excellent writing.

Half-Life was successful in coupling excellent gameplay with an interesting narrative.

What I'm saying is that there's room for both.
 
Very mood dependent.

But I've put a hundred+ hours into a Fallout 4 or Dragon Age: Inquisition playthrough over months of time. Meanwhile Battlefield 1...which I really enjoyed...I played the crap out of for a month and haven't hit since. Younger me played nothing but competitive FPS and the like, older me just wants to zone out for a few hours and if I'm a half bottle through a bottle of Jack Daniels on a Friday I don't need some 15 year old calling me a fag because I'm running the wrong direction or plowed my plane into a hill taking a shot.
 
But to be fair you're just one person. I may not talk/think about KOTOR, but I still play Baldur's Gate, Earthbound, and some of the old Final Fantasy games from time to time. I also just got through playing the original Mass Effect Trilogy, which was fantastic only because of it's excellent writing.

Half-Life was successful in coupling excellent gameplay with an interesting narrative.

What I'm saying is that there's room for both.

Half-Life is an exception for the most part. There's certainly room for both. What I am saying is that it hardly ever happens. It's one or the other 99% of the time.
 
It's rare when I walk away from a game with some amazing story development that sticks with me. It's also rare when I walk away from a game with some amazing gameplay moment that sticks with me. The best games manage to do both without being overbearing in either.
 
I really dislike multiplayer only games. I have always loved and appreciated a good story in a game more than multiplayer. Multiplayer can be done well and I enjoy it when it does, but playing it most of the time feels like a chore than anything else. I'd rather play multiplayer with bots or with someone I know but I'm antisocial so there's that.
 
It's rare when I walk away from a game with some amazing story development that sticks with me. It's also rare when I walk away from a game with some amazing gameplay moment that sticks with me. The best games manage to do both without being overbearing in either.

In some cases NO STORY can be very compelling but always leave you with questions.
Good examples, INSIDE and LIMBO.
Just finished INSIDE a few weeks ago. I'm still wondering "What the hell was that thing??"
 
My favorite games have a story. E.g. Planescape: Torment and Morrowind. I felt that Morrwind was a better game then the followups because I enjoyed the story so much. Oblivion and Skyrim's stories were not as compelling.
 
Both Types of games have there place in the world. Personally I like both. Sometimes I want to sit down and enjoy a story rich game like Last Of Us, Mass Effects or The Witcher series. Other times I just want to jump into a brain dead FPS multiplayer and just beat people down. The problem I have with story based games these days is that they seem more half-assed than ever. A good story based game should be 80+ hours of game play and story arcs. Not 10+ hours of story content and 70+ of repeat fetch quests. The latest Final Fantasy was good example of this as you could finish the entire game arc in about 10 hours but spent another 40+ on stupid fetch quests or just traveling time to the fetch quest.
 
Xenogears was my favorite game of all time.

Not because of the gameplay, but because of the story.

Sure it took me about 5-6 play-throughs to fully understand it (trust me, it's complicated) but it created an amazing world, solid characters that were fleshed out, amazing environments, and enveloping soundtrack that brought everything together into an amazing experience.

I also remember The Last of Us as a recent example. Sure, maybe the gameplay wasn't as advanced as some games, but the story was compelling and kept you pushing on and on. Gameplay will get repetitive, because a game can hold only so much code/actions/items/etc. But story should drive you to continue.
 
Back
Top