I feel that I like to keep the cutscenes short and to the point. From what I've heard about MGS 4s 20 minute cutscenes, it must be hard to understand what is going on if you lose track.

what about games like KOTOR or Mass Effect where choices develop your character. or in Indigo Prophecy were you have a set DESTINATION but not a set PATH you get to choose how to go through it. by panicking and running, acting like nothing happened, or any thing inbetween that

I really agree with this article.
It may sound like snobbery, stating the fact that most gamers don't know the difference between good storytelling and crap, but the proof is in the pudding. Just look at all the people here defending Metal Gear Solid and touting the story in Mass Effect.
But unfortunately bad storytelling is a part of any entertainment medium. Aside from bad videogames, there are bad tv shows, bad movies, bad music, bad books, bad graphic novels, etc. Fortunately, for every ten examples of bad storytelling there are one or two examples of brilliant storytelling. I think videogames are just coming into their own as far as good stories and storytelling go. I imagine they will only get better as the medium ages.
What we can do as consumers to encourage the progression is to make better decisions with our money and buy games with the kind of stories and storytelling we want more of.

-----
As far as the "first" and other useless comments: use the Report button. If the spam gets reported enough GR should get the idea (as long as we don't abuse the button and Report posts just because we disagree with them).

if we have a game with infinite variation on personality, objectives and npc reaction based on how we play and what we choose to do it isnt a game with a story at all but a sandbox where we create an alternate life for ourselves true?, you said it yourself david the 'solution' is the neverending story (stories need a begining a middle and a end too be a story otherwise it's a sim), or did you mean neverending storie's because thats certainly not a solution too a games failure at effectively telling a story, all stories are still linear whether or not there are multiple beginings, middles or endings, that just means there's multiple stories in one game and we get too pick through them according too our own personality's(well the game picks the story for us but you get the idea), which may definetly improve the experience and the quality of the game, but in terms of the difference between good or bad story telling it still just comes down too the story im afraid (whether or not you run your all-powerful saviour of the universe around in circles on the spot like a looney)

and another thing ff7 is still the greatest of finalfantasy stories ever told even with a predictable save the world ending the emotional investment and personal want too 'find out what happens next' is undeniable

facinating article!
it really got me noggin a joggin

It seems that the author of the article has a specific kind of story in mind, and I feel that this is very close-minded. It is kind of like saying novels fail at story telling because they don't have pictures like comic books.

An amazingly insightful article. Not so much on a "ground-breaking" level but more in a "pointing out the obvious, that everyone seemed to miss" sense. It is true that games, for the most part, would receive a resounding 'F' when it comes to story-telling. Some do offer up great stories overall.

That's not to say that novels should be written about them, for instance, the Halo novels muddied waters that weren't clear to begin with (see gameradars'Halo: the story so far'). There is hope though, future titles and systems will only increase developers abilities to create and invent seemingly endless ways of telling a story via actual gameplay.

Most games will retain a rigid, scripted structure. Without it, you could potentially be playing the same game over and over - and that's just not fun. That's one reason why games do follow a set structure, there's a specific story someone wants to tell - even if it was an afterthought to the gameplay.

While watching the Fallout 3 walkthrough vids on gametrailers.com - the player had agreed to blow up a town, but was given the honor of 'throwing the switch' - in the video, they went ahead and did it, but I wondered "What if I changed my mind and decided to kill the NPCs that gave me the mission right before flipping the switch, and leave this bomb active so I could blow it later in the game?" Hopefully, that choice will be mine to make.

The outcome of that may merely make my game a bit shorter/longer depending on how the NPC/town missions are scripted. And that is really what it all comes down to - the script. Developers spend countless hours making the game functional (running, jumping, shooting groins) - some developers, the likes of Lionhead, Valve and now Bethesda, spend even more hours linking in-game actions to end game results.

A true sandbox game would end-up like your GI Joes and Lego men in a real sandbox when you were playing as kid. You start the game, maybe build a castle/fort, then place your troops -- but OH NO! A giant flood hits(your little brother and a garden hose) and traps some soldiers under the rubble/sand. Now there are only a few troops left and you must make your way out of the swamp/desert alive. All of these events would have to be completely random, just a roll of the dice.

Sound like fun? Hell no! You just built a sweet-ass castle, that was destroyed for no reason. On the plus side, your game has completely changed, you were playing a RTS and now maybe a FPS/RPG, so that's cool. However, in a truly open world, one where anything is possible at anytime - how would it end?
*side track*
Storage media capacities are becoming larger by the day - and thankfully cheaper! There is, or will be, a limit to how much information can be stored on a disc. Companies get around this by offering downloadable content now -- here's an idea - and you heard it from ME first (probably), put your game on a fucking flash drive and sell it that way - USB2 is fast enough to stream a game, hell I loaded 3Gb of music to my blackberry in under a minute. Seriously I should patent that. 360's scratched disks? Not a problem!
*end ST*
What the hell was I talking about? Right, Story telling. Because a specific story needs to be told, certain events need to be followed. Though those events can be altered by in-game actions with some games - the events still unfold, one way or another, as scripted. You are inevitably limited by a developers time constraints, financial situation, and foresight. Do we really want the 'butterfly effect' to happen in our games? Because we decide to try out a new weapon on hapless-stander-by-X should our love interest be killed 40 game hours later? Is it really worth using an entire tree to print each game guide that would go with this game? Maybe.

Besides probably having a downloadable guide, the other accomplishments in creating a truly sandbox and butterfly game would be Noble Prize material. 'Hours' of gameplay would not be a factor, 'Years' would be a fitting term. imagine a world in which you could do anything but had no control over what the bible belt would call 'acts of god' - a game that could seamlessly switch from RTS to RPG to FPS to Sport and so on -- and the cast of 'villains' was forever changing. One day aliens attack - then the next zombies. But before you kill all the zombies, the aliens return with more numbers, and in the midst of all this a feminine looking dude decides to try to take over the world. Then a flash of light comes from the sky, you are rendered unconscious, and when you wake up you have lightening powers! And the outcome, should you ever get to it, depends on every choice you've made over the past 500 hours - but because you stepped on the golden flower 5mins ago, you die and need to reload -- when did you save last? yesterday?

Now take all that and add multiplayer and co-op, and you have yourself a game.
The point is, which out structure, there would be no story worth telling. Continued Below.......

The point is, which out structure, there would be no story worth telling... The game would get lost in itself and become enigmatic. Never really knowing what to be, what to do or how to respond to an action. A new type of AI would need to be present to calculate every possible outcome, and the result may be worse than the offspring of a Metal Gear game and the puzzles from any adventure game (fish+toaster+string=lava lamp.)

Strangely, there are promising "story driven" games that are coming out very soon - and all begin with the letter "F":

Fable 2
Fallout 3
Far Cry 2

I just thought of some more points to make, but I'll wait till gameradar offers me a freelance position... so I guess you'll never read them.

damn, I should have read more of jimsondanet's comments - he covered a lot of what I said -- oh well.

i still feel betrayed

p.s.damn codzprc longest comment I've ever seen

i think dude is got a chip on his shoulder and has to take is out on something. real in-depth story driven games are amazing. the MGS series, KOTOR, mass effect, silent hill, uncharted, firewarrior. c'mon man you can't hate a good story just because it outdoes your middle school diary entries.

fleshcrawl - I'm not sure if you are talking about me or the author of the article -- but either way, we are not saying that the stories aren't great, just that depending on who is playing the character and how they are playing (based on the character's back story) is somewhat a betrayal of the story in general.

Take GTA IV for example. Just because Niko reacted aggressively toward one of the "to kill or not kill" characters, didn't necessarily dictate your actions. Therefore you actively changed the story -- in a sense, it didn't matter because it only added or removed some missions, and Niko was portrayed as a conflicted yet reluctant character anyway.

However, in games where the character's personality is well defined (devil may cry, mgs, Ninja gaiden) - if you as a player are not living up to the game character's already set standards of excellence, then you as a player have failed.

That's what the article was trying to get at and (I think) I was alluding to. The fact that these impossible standards are set for players to live up to (through the story line) and some, if not most barely scrape by through luck and many deaths to learn by.

Also, the article talks about how your actions really don't effect the story in most games. Meaning that if you die - the game doesn't end and send you back to the beginning or just end and never let you play again. Gaming wouldn't be as popular as it is today if that were the case.

You make it to a checkpoint, battle on, hit another checkpoint - maybe die, reload the last checkpoint. No other form of media, except the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, have such a system. Which creates a double edged sword for game developers. They want to give you as many options as possible, but at the same time give you a great story. The result is, you play through from plot point to plot point, and they fill in the blanks.

Personally, I loved kotor, mass effect, and Uncharted - MGS' story was deep but ultimately never held my interest, though I have played all of them since the 3d debut on Ps2. Silent Hill never caught on either with me - but that's not to say they were bad stories - just not my thing.

Anyway, I see it as a possibility over the next few decades that develops will create a way to have a 100-if-not-90-ish% story telling capable game - but it will be very ambiguous - definitely ambitious and ultimately costly, both financially for the developer and time-wise for the player.

Since I am rambling, I'll cover some of the points I thought of the other day...

For a story to be effective in today's games, they either have to immerse the player so deeply into the character life - through ambiguity (like Halo:CE, and Gears of War) - or offer multiple paths and outcomes (ie. Mass Effect, Fable 2, Far Cry 2) -- anything in between is hit or miss depending on the gamer.

Another factor that is rarely taken into the matter of "Good vs. Great" games, is who you know and what they think. Most gamers know what they like, and what they may like - but outside influences (friends, media), may cause a gamer to try something new - Halo Wars is seeking to bridge a gap, and likely will if the game can stand up to longtime RTS players. I was sold when it was first announced, being a long time AoE and C&C player, and a Halo:CE fan.
*note
2 & 3 were decent but never lived up to the original for me - the story went places that I thought were rushed and miss placed - they also froze my screen for a voice over... not cool.
/note*

Going back to the point, gamers know that hype is a marketing tool. Developers show you the best screens and videos they can. Devs tell you the best parts of the game play you'll experience. What they never mention is how often you will do or experience these parts - ofttimes they will become stale, irritating, and frustrating.

There is no set formula for a game. You could play for 2 minutes or 2 hours before being met with a FMV or in-game cinematic - it's because of this that Devs take such liberties with what you do versus what they say happens in the story.

I'm running out of characters again for my post, but I will end with this and a pre-written note: --- actually, I'm getting low so I'll do another one, sorry.


Darth Vader Has a secrete apprentice
*By the way, all game examples for references are they only ones I could think of - seriously it's 4am on a Tuesday, and I need to go and get Dead Space soon..*

all right, the continuation from above.....

....it's because of this that Devs take such liberties with what you do versus what they say happens in the story.

It is because of video games and their stories that(and this would make a great gamesradar list):

Darth Vadar has an apprentice

Yoda, Darth, and the apprentice appear in Soul caliber IV

Heihachi, Spawn, and Link appear in Soul Caliber II

Fable 2 has Master Chief amror and energy sword(LimEdi)

Gamorrean guards "rock out" in Lego Star Wars

Actually the whole Lego game series is a spoof on favored epics that if would hardly be tolerated if they were a book, or movie - but because we are allowed to take part, we accept it. Imagine the makers of "Superhero Movie" did an entire movie spoofing (the original) Star Wars or Indy... that's basically what the lego series is, but because it's fun and familiar we accept it.

The makers of "superhero movie" would go overboard anyway - seriously who watches those?

I got side tracked again, lack of sleep and massive amounts of beer...

The Matrix - I was ready to be Neo. I got Jada Pinkett Smith. I wanted to hack the matrix - I got an overly convoluted cheat screen. Which got me Neo but still...

Damn, I went from rambling to ranting pretty quick.

Wait, one last rant - the flood. Really? Did Halo need the "zombie" add on. Yeah yeah, people will say "They aren't 'zombies', they are a virus or bacterial organism that feed from and reanimates dead flesh!" Then I will pause, slap them and say "ZOMBIE!" -- Villain archetype are few, and fall into specific categories - Zombie covers a lot, even if it tacks 'alien' in front of it.

Sure, you could call them 'monsters' but they are not. Dead Space calls them monsters, but their 'monsters' are reanimated HUMAN corpses that have been mutated due to some 'relic' thingy... like in "THE DIG" kinda-ish. So the are 'mutant zombies'... yay! I bought the game, by the way - it's amazing and I love it -- at least until Fable 2, Far Cry 2, and Fallout 3 come out.

Let's see - I did the ramble, the rant... ah yes, time for the rave. If you are not excited for any of the three games I listed above - you obviously have plans to tour China, Japan, Australia, Fiji, and hotspots over the winter months. Because the next few months are going to be amazingly gam-gasmic.

Here's why(US dates release dates)

dead space Already out

fable 2 Tuesday, October 21, 2008

far cry 2 Tuesday, October 21, 2008

fallout 3 Tuesday, October 28, 2008

gears of war 2 Friday, November 7, 2008

C&C: RA3 Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Left 4 dead Monday, November 17, 2008

Tomb Raider Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Underworld

Project Origin Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Prince of Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Persia

Ghost Busters Q4 2008

Honestly, I don't care about Prince of Persia - since Warrior Within gave into popular trends - but the newest iteration doesn't look bad. Every other game is something to be excited about - with a special head nod to Ghost Busters. Watching the gameplay vids, which captured and expanded upon great film moments was promising - but I want to cross the streams on Zule!! Plus original cast voice acting and script writing guarantees my money.


***last note - lava_lamp: how ironic that you comment on a post in which I mention your name sake for an adventure game puzzle.

Good luck and good night.

eeerr.. wanted to apologizeze for the typos in my past comments -- proof positive that writers need editors and proof readers.

...apologizeze... brilliant.

i feel Link is very similar to Gordon in that you can project your personalities and values into him
and i think Fable 2 might put an end to crappy narrative

The Witcher. A game that can teach about gaming storytelling.

When reading the first page I started to think about Half-Life, and there it was, at page two. Great article.

Even though I don't dislike MGS's way of storytelling, I have to agree it's far more immersive if you just take out any cut scenes and let the player watch the events, pretty much what happened in Half-Life 1: at first you see the lab with all the scientists and guards, fully functional, then you get shocked by the pile of corpses, everything destroyed. You really don't need to talk to someone and hear "hey everything is destroyed" to realize it, if the game allows you to see the situation for yourself.

@timp123: oh right, because none of us who enjoy the story in MGS have ever read or watched a movie YOU'RE SO SPECIAL.
The reason that I disagree so heartily with this article is for its encomiums to Portal and Half Life 2. I never, not even for a second, felt connected to Chell or Gordon Freeman. Perhaps less so, actually, than a video game character who speaks. Why? Because there are way too many "OH WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT" moments in the games to have a mute protagonist be believable.

Which is better, a sandbox game with 700 in-game choices or 701? Or 70000? Until that number is infinite, the game's story is limited in the same creative way that straight, single path games are. If a true sandbox game was made (with an infinite number of choices), what, apart from the gameplay, would separate the resulting story from simply imagining one? The only difference is the overall creative direction of the writers/designers, which is limiting.Games with conventional storylines like MGS only differ from the sandboxes the article praises in the level of creative input. Put another way: both types of game storytelling are ultimately didactic. The advantages all stem from the input of other creative talent, which will limit the player's input (even if the player is free to make all the choices, do they decide the consequences each choice will have?). If you want a 100% interactive game, play whatever game you like and imagine whatever story context you want (this is what I do when playing games with poor stories anyway). Anything less is didactic, which, according to this article, is Bad.

The advantage paintings have over photographs is their ability to include elements that aren't seen in life. This doesn't mean that every painting has to be a pseudo-realistic Picasso, or that a photorealistc painting is "mixed media". Not all paintings use the color blue. This doesn't mean that painting with or without blue are mixed messages. The same can be said for cutscenes. And, if we're talking about playing an enjoyable game, I'd rather have skippable MGS-style cutscenes (even if they're not well-made)than the unskippable Valve FPS cutscene, where a character talks while you can freely inspect the floor.

Besides, the difference between games and other media like books or movies ISN'T the choices- books can have choices included (if choice A, turn to page X. If choice B, turn to Y), and it would easy to do the same for for a movie. The difference is that video games have gameplay. The difference between Portal and other FPSes was mentioned on this site a while ago. Portal is a non-violent FPS with feminine gameplay symbols, while Bioshock and Half-Life are essentially no different from any other game that has you running around, shooting things. Same with MGS- it was a game with cutscenes and avoiding conflict by remaining hidden. The story was peripheral to the experience. For games to mature, they don't need to become sandboxes, they just need to expand the range of gameplay, and use it as the message the story underlines. Bioshock was, to me, a failure, because the elements in it that gave choice (such as the Little Sisters) has almost no impact on gameplay, only on the story. Really, what mattered in Bioshock was what plasmids you used, not how you got them. There's no reason a game can't have a story as good at least as any film, but that's peripheral to the gameplay. Using gameplay as a shell for the story is "mixed media".

To continue a little bit;

Although I do like Portal (as a game and as a gameplay experience), its "story" is hardly any less clichéd than any other game criticized on the response thread (e.g. Mass Effect). Or have rebellious, omnipotent machines become more than a trite, obvious 1950's plot device? And while the article praises the "rebellious" fervor killing GLAdOS generates, no triumph over authority has ever been more hollow. GLAdOS was dead from the beginning of the game; the game was designed with her death in mind, and killing her represents the player fulfilling the wishes of authority (the developers), not flaunting it. Abusing a glitch is the true gaming equivalent of rebellion.

The most telling part of the article, I found, was a caption on the second page. "It's hard to empathise with Warrior Within's Prince of Persia unless you're very angsty". It's hard to sympathise with, say, King Lear unless you're REALLY emo. Most storytellers tell in the third person, where they can easily create and manipulate characters for the gain of the story. It's hard to think how King Lear would be improved if it improved if the story included a 20-something who shoots Lear in the face in the first Act, because, behind the fourth wall, he knows nothing is really at stake. Games have checkpoints and saves, books have page numbers and bookmarks. But, although I can reanimate any character by flipping back in the book, my ability to empathise is not empared. It IS all about bad acting, crappy storytelling and Jill sandwiches.