Hmm... I don''t think there is much merit to a backstory that is presented to the player up front, in the manual for example. When I see people post here asking for comments on their ''RPG'' and then go ahead to post the backstory that gives the setting, it tends to show they''ve not thought so much about the game itself. I would very much prefer just a brief paragraph or two, or a cutscene that introduces the game at the start.

I do think there is scope for good storylines within the game itself, and I think that unveiling the story as you go rather than presenting it all upfront is one of the crucial things that keeps the game interesting. And this doesn''t have to be done instead of statistical advancement or whatever, it can be done alongside it. Indeed, most of the best RPGs had both elements.

But I also think that some games don''t really need much backstory (MMORPGs, for instance) since much of the fun comes from renewable sources. However, if you could make it seem plausible, the story could certainly improve the atmosphere.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

Games can be a good narrative, even better than movies, because you are experiencing it yourself. I''ve mentioned a lot about it recently, but it''s a really good example. Eternal Darkness has a typical b-movie plot, but the way it''s told through the game makes it a MUCH better story than it would have been in say a book or a movie. And the story is tied into the game enough that you can still be immersed and feel as if you have control over the game while following a linear path. Deus Ex would not have been (will not be) as good a movie as it is a game, because the feeling that YOU are the one uncovering the cliched conspiracy plots enhances the story. A game can enhance a bad story.

On the other hand, SOOOO many GREAT games have little to no story at all. Tetris, Mario, the Sims, multiplayer games. These titles don''t NEED story. Deus Ex would just be another average shooter without it''s story. The gameplay such as augmentations etc are great, but without at least a backstory to tie the whole thing together, your just shooting stuff. Doesn''t it make more sense for there to be a REASON your there? I spent two weeks and played through the whole game, and that was just how it should be. But what if Mario had the best story ever. Would that make it better? No. It would still be mario. Unless they changed his personality because of the story. Which would be annoying and wrong. So it''s safer for them to not try too hard on the story.

But usually, some kind of backstory or at least reason should be there for most games.

i like a background story in my games, but remember games are an INTERACTIVE medium... using examples from books and movies is pointless as they are passive mediums... you sit there and have the story HAPPEN to you. you have no influence over what goes on. in a game, you CAUSE stuff to happen. it''s up to you.

i don''t want games to focus too much on story, turn into books, into movies... because that''s not what they''re all about.

one of the most irritating games i have played is final fantasy 8, because story took precendence over gameplay... you would walk down a few corridors, a lengthy cutscene would play, then you''d walk around for a little longer, etc. etc.
it was boring.

on the other hand, the mario bros series had a very simple story... save the princess... yet it was fun because the majority of the game consisted of testing your skill and interacting with the gameworld, rather than just guiding your character to the next trigger point to advance the story... the story simply gave a reason for your quest, and a background.

What''s the difference between a Role Playing Game and a Role Playing World? Clue: The answer is not people.

Thoughtbubble you are so succint. I agree 100% that story is purely functional (to summarize briefly). I would add that the functionality of "story" builds on those stories we already rely on for meaning in our day-to-day existence.

The argument (?) as I would state has its root in the fact that some people design games from beginning to end, other people design games from middle to horizon (hence RPG/RPW distinction). Both work, both cohere, both lack interpersonal contigency (hence distinction between person and people).

The question is: does the game lead to gaming, the way sin leads to inquity, or does the puzzle reveal the truth the way Christ reveals love - ?.