I play FPS games to work out daily aggrivations and the like. Currently I am working through Far Cry and find myself suddenly reminding myself when the cut scenes occur that there is some sort of plot within the game. Reflecting back most of the (r?)evolutionary games had paper thin plots with not much story interuption between beginning and end. I believe the GameSpot (or was it IGN) dished Call of Duty:Finest Hour for short levels that didn't allow for "the player to become attached to the character." Why would I want to become attached to whatever character I am cast as? I am there to shoot things. This leads me to wonder if developers are wasting time on story development? Does story or level design drive the FPS? Does the level design or the story make a good FPS?

Well I think you have to find a balence between the gameplay and the plot. Some games like counter strike just don't need a plot because they are that good.

Two Words... Red Faction

Well, without meaning to sound rude i think the question you are asking is pointless, sorry.

I think if a game has a good story, like Deus Ex for example, then it becomes that game, but a game that has a weak story, like Quake 2 becomes the hyper-blaster-em-up that it does. This is because u dont care what u are shooting at because u know everyone but u is bad.

In Deus Ex u know that u have to interact with the story, which means you have to be careful with the way u execute the game.

Hope this clarifies things.

ace

Our philosophy (i.e. those I work with) is that any given game needs to have not just one entertaining element but rather two or three main ones, and a few auxiliary elements to build an atmosphere (like music, theme, dialects, etc.).
In an fps the primary entertaining element is shooting people or monsters, which is fun for quite a while if you keep feeding the player with different opponents, but what about when the player gets tired of killing? If you don't have any other main element in the game to back up the primary, the player will lose interest in the game. In a multiplayer fps you automatically have a secondary entertaining element in the interaction with other players, which can keep the player entertained for some additional time, optimally until he/she has gotten back the thirst for killing.
With a single player fps on the other hand you need to come up with a secondary element yourself and a storyline might be a solution. It could keep the player playing even though he/she isn't so much into it for the killing as for to see the evolution of the story. But it is probably possible to skip the storyline and add some other nice entertaining element.
If you aim for three main elements (which I think is best because it gives the game a good balance) you could also try to implement a storyline into a multiplayer fps as long as it doesn't conflict with the other elements and become an annoying factor.

Best of luck
/Staffan Einarsson

It depends heavily on the type of game. Every game has at least some story, in the form of a Theme, or atmosphere to create a setting for the mindless action to take place. Even if the game isn't made with this in mind, it can create its own atmosphere and Theme given the combination of items, terrain, and gameplay.

But whether a game participates or endorses the story or not is optional. Some games have great potential and fun with the players participating in the story (halflife), and others are completely boring because of it. Some games only require the atmosphere and alot of heart pumping action, since thats the emphasis of the gameplay. Its a mixed boat and everyone has different tastes.

Halo 2 is a good example of a dynamite FPS with a terrific, but totally optional, plot.

The story is actually quite sophisticated (it's no Marathon, but Bungie's priorities have shifted a little), but you don't have to pay any attention to it whatsoever. The main character is flat, making it easy to place yourself in the game, but not requiring any real role-playing in-game. You can skip the cutscenes and get right to blasting, or you can watch them and get a feel for the setting, characters, and larger conflict. Much of what might have been cutscene in a different game is played out real-time in this one, not breaking the action.

I think that's just the way to do it. Doom 3 has a similarly subordinate storyline, offering information about characters and situation in little bites to the player, but never really pushing itself between your gun and your enemies.

I don't consider FPS stories, "plots", but "afterthoughts".

Having a pre-written story of some sort will guide the player and give a sense of purpose. Just blasting away aliens of psychedelic colours and anatomies or whatever can be fun, but the player might start to feel it is pointless.

Then again, having a fixed, pre-written story will reduce replayability. Once finishing the original Max Payne, I saw no reason to play it again, ever. The game is too fixed on the story, in my opinion. For comparison, I do sometimes play some old games such as the original Doom which doesn't constantly interrupt the actual game with the story.

Quote:

Original post by Whirlwind I [...] find myself suddenly reminding myself when the cut scenes occur that there is some sort of plot within the game. Reflecting back most of the (r?)evolutionary games had paper thin plots with not much story interuption between beginning and end. I believe the GameSpot (or was it IGN) dished Call of Duty:Finest Hour for short levels that didn't allow for "the player to become attached to the character." Why would I want to become attached to whatever character I am cast as? I am there to shoot things.

One of the key words here is cut scenes (I'm talking about cut scenes mainly here, but most of this applies to any game-interrupting ways to advance the story). Some people like them, some (e.g. me) loathe them. It's a matter of taste. Cut scenes are one of the ways to advance the story, but in my opinion it's overused. For one thing it hampers replayability. Secondly, if I'm on a killing spree (in-game, hopefully), and a cut scene begins all of a sudden, it completely messes up my concentration. After the cut scene I'm utterly lost and confused and practically as vulnerable as possible. That's not fun. There are other ways to advance the story, and the best ways are in-game, not separate video sequences.

Still, I agree with ace_lovegrove in the sense that the question is a bit pointless. Some people want a story, others don't. It all depends what kind of FPS you really want. Personally I prefer replayability and uninterrupted gameplay, so I'm inclined to think too much time is wasted on story development. Again, it's a matter of taste.

As for level design, in a story-oriented game where the idea is to play the game once, levels should be detailed and set the mood for the game. In a game where you want to focus on gameplay and especially replayability, the levels should be relatively simple and plentiful; as Whirlwind said, the player is there to shoot things, not to look at the decors. And 30 levels is not plentiful. If there is one thing I would like to see in a FPS, then that is randomly generated levels.

When talking to mainstream gamers about FPS gaming the most common complaint is the lack of story or rather, how the story have no impact or connection to the game (the next most common complaint is stupid ai).
The FPS genre reminds me a lot of how porn movies are made; The thinnest of plot as an excuse for lots of improbable sex scenes. Satisfies the average wanker but will never appeal to a larger audience. The situation is the same with FPS games and with the same excuses; "The audience don't want fancy story", "The production costs will be too high" etc.