If we're going to do a good job of answering the question, it will be more useful to know what Whirlwind meant by "plot" than to know what a dozen other philologists might think it means. Enough with the semantics; it's intellectual masturbation.

Doing my best to be helpful, I'd say that an FPS game needs only a first-person view and some kind of shooting. After that, features and characteristics should be weighed individually by designers. Anything that will help the game be enjoyable, feasible and marketable should go in. Anything else is superfluous and should be left out. Do I like FPS games with impressive stories and long cut-scenes and deep characters? Sure. Do I like FPS games that are devoid of meaningful content beyond action and thrills? You bet. Above all, I like any game that's well designed and pleases my intuitive sense of aesthetics.

So, in conclusion, FPS games don't NEED plot, but plot isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. I cast my vote for having it available to players, but not foisting it upon them. It is the interruption of play that Whirlwind seems to dislike, and I can only agree.

There is plot, which is the ultimate goal the story of the game has (Deux Ex) and there is premis which Doom I was based. If a story happens to have a premis that forms into a vague optional story as the game develops then I can handle that kind of story. Where the story is the game and the game is catering to the story is where issues arrise. I would call this the meander approach ala Wolfenstein (more specifically the most recent iteration). Some designers seem to forget that the player might like the play more than the story and coherce players into the story line. I would call this the drag approach ala Splinter Cell.

If all else fails and the designer can't pull away from the story line enough to give the player a chance at self discovery then by all means use either the space or the escape key to allow the people who don't care about plot to just skip it. The mission can be stored in some sort of book thing. Leave the game open to be played with or without a story.

I am going to state the best story/plot driven game I played recently - Chronicles of Riddick. I didn't mind the cut scenes at all as they were a nice break from the two or three hour long trek between the cut scenes. They set the story up nicely and were very appropriately placed. Even though the story was not too deep and quite cliche' the pacing and placement of the story just felt right. I was used to the (mostly) player driven story so much that I couldn't play more than 5-10 minutes of Spliter Cell:PD. Being told how to play a mission by the story was akin to finding out that you were adopted during your parent's will reading an aren't getting a penny.

Could the FPS really go without a deeply woven story and just work off of premise and still be a great FPS?

as for my 2 cents =)

don't make a game that is "a story" with "FPS action"

whatever you put into your game it should be homogeniusly blended,

one thing i cant stand about games is discreet "Story" "Gameplay" "Story" "Gameplay" alternations, yech.


as far as a "plot" i think that all games need one, that is, a premise as to what you are doing and why you are doing it, even if it is as weak as,

introduction->gameplay->end

but for my part, i dont like games like that :-D

I find FPS games with a plot a bit boring not long after I've scratched the surface. Instead I think FPS's should be built of multiple mini plots putting together a story as a whole.

There's not much less satisfying when once again your objective slips out of your grasp for the umpteenth time, and the next stage is to once again chase after the same objective. That gets boring quickly.

As an example (IMHO) of a well designed game with mini plots was Tron 2.0. Each stage/level of the game had a distinctly different objective, all of which were satisfyingly rewarding and provided a sense of accomplishment. It was also easier for me to actually step away from the game from time to time and look forward to returning to it later. Counterpoint to this was Doom 3, where more often than not I was grumbling in frustration when I'd been playing 4 or 5 hours longer than I had intended just because I refused to quit playing until I'd actually felt as if I'd accomplished something before going to bed. Eventually dissatisfaction kept me away from the game until such time that I had nothing better to do.

Quote:

Original post by superpig Story provides emotional engagement. If you're playing FPS 2005 and it doesn't have a story, what's your motivation? What are your rewards? Unless you find shooting things to be a reward in and of itself - in which case I suggest you see a therapist - then presumably you're playing for what you get for successfully shooting everything that can be shot. I guess you could be playing for the fun of outwitting the AI... but you're usually telling a low-level story there. In the long run, you complete the game - but few people actually play for that (or at least, few people actually complete all the games they buy). So, say I complete a level of your FPS. What do I get, if not another chunk of the story?

That's just dumb.

You do agree that most FPS (talking about all the mainstream ones) levels consist of shooting things, perhaps some minor riddles and than some more shooting, then maybe a bit of driving to get faster to some more shooting (its expected considering they are called FPShooters).

So you do the shooting just to get another chunk of the story (in your on word). You're doing it for the story, so you're basically trying to get trough the shooting as fast as possible so you don't have to do it again, because that's not the reason you're playing the game in the first place. (cause if u do u : "need a therapist" right)

Something doesn't add up. You either find the story amaizing or the concept of reading a good book or watching a good film somehow eludes you.

So please clarify, why are you playing FPS-es?

Call me a break from the average, but for me, an FPS where the gameplay is anything less than absolutely top notch stellar must have a good story pushing it. If the gameplay isn't the best, then you need a story to make it interesting. I tend to play all the FPS games I play to completion.

On the one hand, take Halo. Halo was a great game, primarily, because of the story. Take away the story and what's left? A guy running around shooting things and driving the occasional vehicle. Sure you could do some things that other games wouldn't let you do, like flip the vehicles back over, but in the end there was absolutely no reason to buy or play it without the story.

The graphics were good, but the gameplay itself was nothing special, and there was really nothing innovative going on there. The story *made* the game. Without the story, I could've just loaded up any of the other dozen or so games I have and played one of those instead of wasting my money.

Oni (another bungie title) had a less strong story than Halo, and it was what a lot of stories are to games -- not complementary, just excuses to give a vague explaination to the question "why am I here." Oni more than made up for it with an innovative style of play that no other game can match.

Serious Sam had absolutely no story that I have been able to fathom. You walk along, and uncountable waves of monsters come at you again and again and again. The game was very cool though and still just as fun to play as the other two, because it like Oni was very innovative. The weapons were absolutely absurd. The character skin choices were equally absurd. The physics was... interesting. The action was 100% fast and frantic, start to finish, almost never letting you catch your breath.

I agree that the games that tie the story in too much have little to no replay value, especially as if in the case of Oni there is also no multiplayer. I still install Oni and play through it again on occasion though, because even years later, there isn't an FPS out there that blends hand to hand with ranged combat so seamlessly.

FarCry and Deus Ex are in the sort of same category as well, with an equal blend of both, though Deus Ex had a more engaging story and better character evolution -- you can play it several times taking a different route each time just to see how it goes. FarCry I agree, the story was a little weak, and since completing it, I'll probably never play it again, because like Halo it doesn't really bring anything innovative to the FPS experience itself.

Halo's story was cliche' as Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Serious Sam - you are a solo super trooper sent to destroy an entire army. Plot - a foreign/alien/whatever is threatening something and you have to kill all of them. Halo incorporated the cliche' bodysnatcher aliens just like HalfLife 1.

Aside from being one of the few decent games on the XBox, Halo didn't introduce anything new. Story - could have done without Halo's paper thin story. Bungie could have just stated "kill all the aliens" and had just as successful game. I enjoyed Halo because you could drive stuff. That lasted until BF1942 came to my PC. After that, Halo was just another FPS.

A Nazi in any other uniform is an alien, vampire, elf, or mutant. They exist as canon fodder for a thin story. Serious Sam and Halo had the same premise of a story - kill the enemies. Halo just had smaller waves of monsters and smaller, more confusing maps.

Phrase of the day: "Plot of a story."

Serious Sam is such a great game cause it doesn't anything else other than a really good FPS, and it does it extremly well.

Quote:

Original post by Whirlwind Halo's story was cliche' as Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Serious Sam - you are a solo super trooper sent to destroy an entire army. Plot - a foreign/alien/whatever is threatening something and you have to kill all of them. Halo incorporated the cliche' bodysnatcher aliens just like HalfLife 1.

Well maybe that's all you got out of the story if you're not a scifi fan, but Halo did have a great story. Much better than HL or HL2, somewhat plausable, and it tied in nicely with the missions you were given.

Without the story though you're right, it was exactly like any other FPS, which I already agreed with. If the story had been weak or nonexistant, I wouldn't have bought it, because as an FPS it's nothing special.

Halo also had an awesome soundtrack, and excellent voice talent behind it, all together taken as enough to pry money from my wallet.

Quote:

Aside from being one of the few decent games on the XBox, Halo didn't introduce anything new. Story - could have done without Halo's paper thin story. Bungie could have just stated "kill all the aliens" and had just as successful game. I enjoyed Halo because you could drive stuff. That lasted until BF1942 came to my PC. After that, Halo was just another FPS.

Well I don't have an xbox, I played Halo only on my PC, and had BF1942 long before I bought Halo, and also enjoyed the vehicles. BF1942 has been great for multiplayer, especially with a mod like DC.

Quote:

A Nazi in any other uniform is an alien, vampire, elf, or mutant. They exist as canon fodder for a thin story. Serious Sam and Halo had the same premise of a story - kill the enemies. Halo just had smaller waves of monsters and smaller, more confusing maps. Phrase of the day: "Plot of a story."

That's exactly my point. If Halo *didn't* have the story (which wasn't at all thin in my opinion), I wouldn't have bought it. That simple. I have plenty of other games that allow me to drive vehicles and shoot people such as BF1942, Tribes(2, Vengeance), and PS.

Quote:

Original post by superpig Story is not the same thing as plot.

Yeah and actually that's a complaint I have with Half-Life 2. It had a story, though not a very well fleshed-out one, but it had no plot to speak of. All you did was get pushed forward through the levels while learning about the past. Nothing really happened; you mainly just learned about what had happened.