Why do we have stories in games? Also why do we have them in movies, in books etc? What can games achieve with stories? Can they move us? Make us think in new directions? Amuse us? Enthrall us? Add depth to what we are doing in the game? Yes I'm posting this because I'm fed up of the consistent clamour to have games taken seriously as an artform by people who thing that we need to have our Citizen Kane moment (whatever that may signify). Don't get me wrong I am NOT anti-story in games, just fed up of this assumption that "emotion and story" in and of themselves are what games need to "progress", Or be taken "seriously". Much of the time I think that this is just insecurity by games players. And games designers, who are fed up people dismissing games as being for kids and young teenagers. Personally I think that Pop-Cap games (and Tetris, etc) are just as relevant, if not more relevant to the general public than say, Final Fantasy. Because they are more accessible. Maybe if we combined Pop-Cap games with a compelling story then this would be the ideal? HEHEHEHe. I wonder if there is actually a market for the kind of purely story-based experience that many consider. So what do you guys and girls think?

with games getting the budgets and revenues of today's movies, i can see why games companies or even gamers would want games taken just serious as movies. as far as stories go, it's a wonderful way to introduce the game and wrap it up. but we also have to look at the itself to see if the story really drives the game or plug in holes along the way. did sonic and mario really need a story? is god of war driven by the violence the character unleashes? or by the story that weaves betrayal, sorrow, and rage to justify the blood bath that ensues?

Re:

I think you are shooting at the wrong people. It is out of context to say that writers want tetris to have a story. In order to understand what the complaints were about you need to know where the complaints come from.

Look at games with stories.

What would you complain about the stories? If the story is completely taken away, would you still play it? In this situation, wouldn't you say that the story is what set the two counterparts apart? If two games have the exact same gameplay, and both of them have stories, what can you do in the story to set one game above the other?


If you step back and think about why a gamer would pick a game, it goes back to the same kind of question of why a reader would read a story:


Thematic: The player picks the game because of the gameplay and the stuff he can do in it. (I pick this counter-terrorist FPS because I like the gameplay, the setting, and the missions.)

Emotional: The player picks the game because the game creates a certain desirable emotion. (I pick this counter-terrorist FPS because the teammates in this game are human like with personalities. Although there is no penalty of losing a teammate, I really want to complete the mission with everyone ok at the end of the day.)

Semantic: The player picks the game because of the meaning of the game or the game story. (I pick this counter-terrorist FPS because it depicts the actual story meaningfully instead of the usualy good vs bad situations. It shows how sometimes law enforcers are trapped in the middle of debates supportless from either side, while risking their lives for those who don't support them.)



Note that a game usually has all three aspects to different degrees, and story can take part in delivering any of the aspects. Almost all games satisfy thematic appeals. In the landscape where thematic appeal is taken for granted discussions about emotional and semantic appeals may give the wrong impression that thematic content is being overlooked.

Hi Estok, thanks for the reply. Some perceptive thoughts on why some people are clamoring for better stories. Especially in stating that people take the gameplay etc. for granted.

I am confused whether you understood what I was saying.


In your original post you said that designers seem to be focusing too much on emotion and the semantics. Your argument was that thematics is more important and that those designers are misfocused. When you said this:

"Maybe if we combined Pop-Cap games with a compelling story then this would be the ideal? HEHEHEHe."

I think you meant to say that adding a compelling story to a pop-cap game is redundant. In other words you were making fun of how silly the designers are thinking.


What I was trying to say is that your impression is not correct. The thematics is not being ignored. It is such an old topic that the designers have moved on to the next area. When I said 'taken for granted', I meant the designers can safely leave the discussions about how to implement the thematics on games behind, since it had become a relatively trivial implementation. The accusation that designers had lost their heads trying to make games more emotional and meaningful is ill-conceived.

Quote: Original post by Estok
I am confused whether you understood what I was saying.
...
I think you meant to say that adding a compelling story to a pop-cap game is redundant. In other words you were making fun of how silly the designers are thinking.

I think I did understand, however I wasn't making fun of how silly they were thinking. I was instead saying that maybe taking a game with the simplicity of Pop-Cap games would be a great way to make Final Fantasy type games with their O.T.T random combat more accessible. And make an even more story focused game.

At the same time I was suggesting that there is room for all types of games oth story and fun ones.

when I said Why do we have stories in game? what I was trying to say was What purposes (power?) do(es) stories have?