Should games tell a story?

[EmperorJay]

I was wondering what other peoples opinion on this would be.

I think that it's a fact rather than an opinion that the degree in which events are scripted should be different for the many genres around. Bosses in platform/adventure games, tough parts in FPS etc. should be scripted but as someone mentioned, scripting casual events like famine should not be scripted in RTS games. CotN is a citybuilder, but citybuilders are in their own way RTS games too, only the strategy is building and not fighting.

However, I think that an interactive movie to say so, doesn't have to be boring at all. Often levels only end when you have completed your goals; when you die (in FPS, Adventures) or run out of money/resources (strategy games) you just start the same level over. But when a game looks good (and we now have arrived in a period in which games look good and will eventually look like the animation movies from Disney and Pixar), why can't it be as much storyline driven as a movie is? Why does dying have to be the end of the mission, why does running out of resources have to be the end of the mission... when it is scripted?

My personal opinion is as described in the first paragraph, some genres are better off without a story but I think that first person games can be interesting when missions are largely scripted and in which the player really feel one with the character he's playing. The effect being that a player is living a movie instead of watching one.

Note: I'm also very much in favour of freedom but the question I am asking is, are heavily scripted games driven by a story line per se boring?

[Jayhawk]

I think the biggest issue here is replayability, EJay.
If a game offers only a single strongly scripted story line with virtually no assides, or optional threads, loops and such to follow, in short only a single path from start to finish, it will have little or no replay value.

I think most of us prefer games which have a wealth of options allowing you to get much mileage out of them, by virtue of being able to replay either parts of the game or the whole game.

For the citybuilder and stragegy games that often means we like to have branching campaigns, meaning you will have the choice of where to go, like the two campaigns in C3 or the various spots where you make a choice of direction in Age of Wonders. Alternatively, it means we want the single sceanrios to be rich enough in options to try out different tactics, or have random events making the scenario unpredictable and thus replayable.

For RPG type games, where the main story often stays the same and is often linear, you get replay value out of being able to change party composition or character class, and have sufficient side quests open up to wander off the main path occasionally. I'm playing Spellforce through for the second time, where in the first time I had a Light Combat Arts/Elemental Mage (Ice/Fire) specialisation, while I'm trying it now as a Heavy Combat Arts/Life Mage (Healing/Nature). Similarly games like Diablo change when you change character class (and even within the same character class the game plays different based on your skill specialisation).

However, any game should have at least some kind of story as a coat rack for it's scenarios as most people also look for a kind of continuity. Randomly selected scenarios, with no common themes, have a much harder time capturing a person, than a well thought out story can.

So, to cut a long story ;) short, I believe games need to be story driven to capture people's attention, but have enough story options to provide the replayability factor

[EmperorJay]

Then again, what if the game is of such a length that even without any replay value it's still worth it's money?

You do have a point which I've slightly overlooked though :p .

[mouse]

Jayhawk as usual made all the good points in my opinion :D Replay is very important to me since I have unlimited time to play ;) A game that I only play once all the way through is a waste of money for me or even worse a game that can't hold my interest long enough to even play it through once (have a few of those) :rolleyes:

[NeilV]

A Story line helps a game but I think it is better when you get choices on how the story continues Like Deus ex 2 which faction to support who to bump off etc it gives a game that little bit more. More choices in how the story pans out would make games even better as most FPS on last about 8 hours if their is 3 or 4 plot choices you could get aprox 32 hours of game play out of the game.

Though a very good game will keep drawing you back to it even when you now the story very well like GTA 3 Vice city I just love driving around doing the jumps etc I don’t always do the missions just let of a bit of steam.

Historical strategy games don’t need a story as much more just the information about the era and battle you are about to fight.

[Wen Kha-Ne]

Yes, a game needs to be replayable. Games should only tell stories if you get choices how to do so. Even if it is a more simple choice. The best however, let you govern the entire thing. You can choose whether to pay someone or to kill them, where to go, which city to build, what to slay, what your goals are...All games need them. If not then the developers should hope that their free-play option gives the game that added playing time.

Yet again, a classic example was Black & White. Though the freedom was pretty un-refined in those days (basically you chose how to do things. Do them well, do them kindly, do them nastily, or leave them) and the goals would remain the same, this is all changing today. Generally, games should tell some sort of story no matter how vague. Things should have a reason (it's all very well X is X, but why?) and you, as the player, should somehow shape it. You should feel like you really did play out that story; and that you forged it. It wasn't just something you were told to do, but something you did yourself through your own choices and your own path.

[Azeem]

It all depends. Sometimes, some games with strict linear stories have good replayability because they have extremely deep, intriguing stories, making them much like a novel that you would read over and over again. And some games with open-ended stories may not be so replayable because they're simply too wooden. But then again, everyone has their own preferences.

[Keith]

As I indicated in the other similar thread, I am not in favor of any sort of storyline.

[Josh]

The best game I have ever played was mafia, it was excellently scripted well written and directed, in "immersion" games like that where the main joy of the game is feeling like your really there a great story is wonderfull. But in strategy games all the "storys" I have seen really really suck and only detract from the game

Preatorians is a great example of this. It took that annoying AOE2 senario of Joan of Ark where you just walk from one point to another then hear somethign talk and move to the next point to a whole new (annoying) level. I put that game down just because of that.

I think a scripted strategy game is sort of an oxymoron, if your strategy isnt part of the predetermined story you cant do it, then there isnt any strategy.

[Azeem]

Just a thought: how about some "what if" scenarios? "Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds" had some of those interesting "what if" bonus scenarios at the end of the campaign that completely change the ending.

[Jayhawk]

I am not in favor of any sort of storyline.
Not even a historyline? ;)

[Rnett]

I think a scripted strategy game is sort of an oxymoron, if your strategy isnt part of the predetermined story you cant do it, then there isnt any strategy.

Agreed. Storylines are okay, but I like the option of setting my own path as well.

[Keith]

Not even a historyline? ;)
Give me the backround in the briefing text and then set me free.

[Ineti]

I'd prefer a general timeline, like what we got in Pharaoh, over a scripted storyline. The main reason I love Pharaoh so much is that it's completely open-ended. I can start a campaign and play it through, or I can cherry-pick a mission here and there and get my Pharaoh itch scratched.

Playing a linear game with a specific storyline doesn't usually allow you to play one section or another; you have to play it through. I've seen very few scripted games that I'd want to play more than once. It's like a mystery: once you've beaten the game, what's the point of playing it again? Even the coolest, most nifty scripted game is going to get boring at some point.

[Eddy]

I didn't mind the historical storyline in Pharaoh where you were advancing the civilization, but I don't want a forced and scripted story. I greatly prefer scenarios that are freeform.

[Wen Kha-Ne]

Give me the backround in the briefing text and then set me free.

No events? That is no storyline. ;)

[Bizkit]

Actually, that's sandbox mode. :p

[Keith]

No events? That is no storyline. ;)
Events are not a storyline. They could be setup to occur randomly.

[Hanarky]

I need a story and a goal. Sandbox games, even when you can set your own goals, are very boring to me. Though it is very nice, when you can reach a set goal (other than your own) in different ways. It strongly depends on the game I play. Some games are very hard scripted (like NOLF) and I play them with pleasure again and again, because the story is so good :) So yes, a good story is half the rent or guarantee for me to buy a game.

Hanarky

[Lannes]

IMHO the storyline should be embedded in the game environment, with really only sporadic interference from scripted events and plenty of room for variation even then. As a player, you should be free to define your own goals and decide the best way to achieve them. For instance, if a canal is dug, it should be because the player feels it is necessary for his or her purposes, not because it is imposed as a rather abstract :eek:assignment:eek: Assignments are a pain.
I suppose you could call that sandbox, but it isn't static. I mean, time passes, so circumstances (should) change.

Lannes

[Alex_pharaoh]

There are certain games who are without a story and don't need it, like the Civilization series. But looking to the other side, there are games with absolute dependancy of the story, becoming itself the story, like the Legacy of Kain series.

It really depends on what the game is all about. But I think that in a game like Children of the Nile, a little story about a dynasty which is yours is adding a bit of flavor, don't you think?

[Jayhawk]

Events are not a storyline. They could be setup to occur randomly.
However, your scenario goals imply a story. I mean would you really have built, say the Meidum pyramids if you hadn't been given a story that tells you you should do so?

[Keith]

Since it was a mission goal, yes. However, the example of a mission goal implying a storyline is kind of stretching it to make a point. Anything that flows from point A to B to C could be construed as a "storyline" if you look at it long enough. Mission goal -->Build Pyramid-->Mission complete.

Like I said, tell me the "story" in the briefing text and the set me free to play. This does not mean that there should not be any sort of "event schedule" to spice things up.

[Little von]

I think some day the ultimate RPG will come out for SP on the PC. It will be an open ended never ending "scripted" game that one never has to worry about the replayability of as one will never really finish the game. There will always be a new challenge to overcome that you have not seen before. MMORPG's are getting close to this right now and I think it very likely it will be what they all evolve into, as well. It is what the gaming community wants: endless challenge and endless replayability with every game they buy.

Yes, it would be profitable to make a game like that for SP at home as well as MMORPG's. One simply offers new patches for sale to any players that want them. These patches will contain the newest advances and evolving variations in "the story" with the newest AI character additions, new places (cities/countryside) to explore, new random events that lead to even more variables depend on how you react to each random event.... new everything. If a game like this gets a big enough following, these patches need not cost any more than the monthly fees MMORPG'ers are paying to keep their games alive and up to date right now.

[Hamilcar]

I think good games, especially city builders have a strong story as part of the background. This helps you get into the mood of the game and may effect your playstyle. I am a fan of some random events to change things a little for replayability and also like to have 2 or 3 story threads to follow to help determine the way the game is going to go

[Azeem]

I think good games, especially city builders have a strong story as part of the background. This helps you get into the mood of the game and may effect your playstyle. I am a fan of some random events to change things a little for replayability and also like to have 2 or 3 story threads to follow to help determine the way the game is going to go

I'm very much the same way. I like open-ended games, but I also like a good story, even if it restricts the decisions a player can make. Thus I enjoy both heavily story-oriented games and "sandbox" games at the same time.

By the way, welcome to the forums Hamilcar. :)

[pokletu]

Story for campaign, procedural afterwards.

[Jayhawk]

However, the example of a mission goal implying a storyline is kind of stretching it to make a point.
However, I prefer my mission briefing to tell me why I'm building this tomb/temple/pyramid. I also expect them to give me an idea of what to expect, raiders, sandstorms, invaders and have this reflected in the game itself.

So, for me, preferably the introduction gives you the start and outline of the story you will be participating in, setting you the goals and treating you with the environment you have to complete these goals in. In a sense like a role-playing adventure: it's the player(s) making the decisions, bu twithin the framework set by the gamemaster.

[Keith]

That's what I've been saying, give the the storyline in the briefing text. Don't force me to play the game via a storyline.

[Jayhawk]

Do explain the difference?

[Keith]

I don't want to play a game where I'm forced to follow a specific history of events. I don't want to have to build x monument at y time or some other predetermined event. Tell me I need a monument then let me decide when to build it.

[Jayhawk]

Sorry, Keith, but that doesn't make sense.
If we look at say the Pharaoh campaign, the missions are timed to coincide roughly with history, you'll be asked to build the Rostja pyramids approximately when the originals were built and you won't finish the mission until they were built.

Similarly if a mission goal was to conquer enemy X before time Y, or to survive his invasions till year Z, you're following a (hi)story line, which you can't evade.

Now while I admit, it's not fun to have to play, say Kadesh and have no chance to win because history says so, and would prefer not to have that kind of missions, there's nothing wrong (IMO) with a mission which has Muwatallish, the Hittite king attack your Northern frontiers around 1275 B.C.

It's still the story driving you to take action.

[EmperorJay]

I think I see the point :) . I think what Keith is saying is that the missions itself should follow history but as soon as the mission has started nothing should be predetermined (which I prefer myself too).

Interesting point about Kadesh though, if the graphics were really life-like and the story was extremely good and the events were wonderfully scripted and the whole would really give me the feeling that I'm participating in a movie instead of playing a game, I wouldn't mind losing.

[Son of Moose]

the whole would really give me the feeling that I'm participating in a movie...

Now that would be a mouth-watering prospect ... :D

Hopefully CotN with its eye-level view and (fairly) detailed graphics might come close to achieving this objective. I suppose that it will still take some time before this prospect could become reality. What would it require ... much better graphics cards and a massive increase in memory and processing power?

Btw: The story line should succeed in enhancing one's gameplaying options rather than being overly prescriptive and narrowing them. Perhaps an interesting (and somewhat novel) background story might actually encourage the developers to develop additional features for the game in order for the player to meet their (the developer's) objectives. In this way, meaningful storyline development could be extremely beneficial to a game.

[Keith]

EmperorJay gets it.

[Josh]

Yeah what Keith said, Give me the objectives, I will supply the strategy.

[Traxia]

I reckon that there should be story in your own time.

I hate missions when I have to complete something before the clock runs out because I always panic.

I'd like there to be a story that you can immerse yourself in but if you want to go and conquer a city because you don't like the colour of their cheeses that they traded with you, I think you should be able to do that too. I hate it when you get to the end of a scenario and you've done all that has to be done and you can't go and prod Athen's buttock for all those marble requests at the end of it, even if you DO have the maximum sized army and 3 gods going with...

You should be allowed to make your own story and not be penalised for it. But there should be a story for you to follow as a guide. I don't particularly care if Rameses the third didn't knock the ruler of the west bank's block off in the twenty first dynasty (Mainly because he was a twentieth dynasty pharoah), if I want to knock his block off I shall knock his block off... :D

[Lannes]

Yeah what Keith said, Give me the objectives, I will supply the strategy.

I wouldn't want to be given any objectives other than guiding a dynasty through time as successfully as I can. It should be me, as player, that decides how to do that. IMHO it should never be that progress of time depends on whether I have achieved some objective other than staying in power.

Take for instance monument building. If the idea is this boosts the strength of a dynasty, then this should take the form of in-game rewards that come your way if you decide to build one and succeed or penalties if you don't or fail. However, if you don't decide to build them or fail, then time should continue all the same, right up to the end of the campaign or up to the point your dynasty falls.

I'd be really disappointed if instead we'd be stuck with the traditional format of scenarios starting with voices telling the player "you must achieve this or that goal" and ending with "congratulations you have succeeded".

Lannes

[Keith]

Remember as Pharaoh, you wil have one automatic objective for certain and that is to build your tomb. And one more, according to Chris Beatrice, produce a heir.

[Nero Would]

Remember as Pharaoh, you wil have one automatic objective for certain and that is to build your tomb. And one more, according to Chris Beatrice, produce a heir.
But keep in mind, Tilted Mill are probably aiming for a "E" (for everyone) rating for the game ;)

[Azeem]

Remember as Pharaoh, you wil have one automatic objective for certain and that is to build your tomb. And one more, according to Chris Beatrice, produce a heir.

I wonder if that means that you'll have to marry your sister? ;)

That does seem to be a gray area that has not been discussed much.

[Lannes]

Remember as Pharaoh, you wil have one automatic objective for certain and that is to build your tomb. And one more, according to Chris Beatrice, produce a heir.

That doesn't worry me. You must keep the dynasty alive or it's game over. I don't think there should be any other preset victory conditions though. For all other projects it should be up to the player to make a strategic decision based on in-game developments as to which serves the dynasty best.

Lannes

[Keith]

I wonder if that means that you'll have to marry your sister? ;)

That does seem to be a gray area that has not been discussed much.
It's just a guess, but I think you may start the game as Pharaoh and already married (to your sister.) I wonder what conditions have to be in the game before a heir is produced or any child for that matter.

[EmperorJay]

Perhaps you don't start out married but your prestige should be around X before someone would want to marry you.

[Traxia]

I think that having children automatically bumps you up to Teen rating is another reason why the PEGI system sucks. There is no way that Europa 1400 should have got a Teen rating. The only reason I can see is because you marry, die and have children. Possibly because there are bandits and duels but kids get taught that stuff in first year high school (11-12 year olds).

CotN is unlikely to get under a 12+ rating because of the complexity and the fact raiders will invade. Well that's assuming PEGI is consistant.

Not that it really matters anyway. The only rating that matters is the 15 or 18 rating. You can legally sell a PEGI 18 to a child if it doesn't have an 18 certificate because PEGI is a guide for parents, not the law.

[EmperorJay]

I don't know (and don't want to know) about PEGI but all other CB's were rated "E" despite of raids and invasions.

I'm really against those ratings, here in Holland we have such a thing for TV with plans to expand it to music and the like. Movies rated for 16+ can't be played before 22.00 so everyone who needs to get up early in the morning is screwed just because.. let me stop before I offend anyone :) .

[Traxia]

out watershed is 21:00 but yeah I understand what you mean. Then again I'd be upset if I had kids and during their channel surfing they find an 18 rated movie.

[EmperorJay]

Perhaps you have a point there, but there's a difference between erotic programs and a movie like Saving Private Ryan, the same kind of images are quite often shown on the news.

[Traxia]

True but they tend to leave the really gory bits till after nine.

If you have to get up early, just stick on the video recorder, watch something else and then view the movie the night after with the bonus of being able to fast forward through the adverts (and in the case of ITV: a uk station, the news)

[Jayhawk]

I think what Keith is saying is that the missions itself should follow history but as soon as the mission has started nothing should be predetermined (which I prefer myself too).

EmperorJay gets it.
I hope you won't mind me nagging on here, but... would that included scripted natural disasters? Like a period of drought, or crop failure due to locust swarms?

Or invasions? I mean, say you start a scenario in year X where the (hi)story tells you you are having disputes with your neighbours and the story is scripted that when their current leader dies, his hothead son takes over, cuts the granite trade and attacks your borders?

And what about cause and event related pre-determined scripting? You fail to do X so Y happens? Or you do X and Z happens?

Personally I like a modicum of structered events that way, but have them flexible enough so I can react to the story and that my reactions are taken into account in that same story, i.e. I won't be suddenly attacked by enemies I'm friends with just because the event was scripted that way. I'm willing to struggle through scripted (story) natural or politcal upheaval as long as I can do something about it and my doing things about it is taken into account in future scenarios.

Of course, the advantage (for the developers) of you following a predetermined story, is that they need less flexibility in the game. They won't need to counter every single idea a player comes up with, as they would if they made it a freeform game, which basically says: You're goal is to lead a dynasty from 5000BC to 100BC and that's it.

That same advantae is one for the players, as it will be possible to encounter a richer mix of things along your career that you might posibly think of yourself.

[tobing]

Jayhawk,

this type of scripted events is pretty much what adds so much fun to Zeus. So there are scripted events which just happen, or events that happen if you don't fulfil some request (gods or neighbours, doesn't matter). In any case you can do something about it, or you have to cope with some disaster, so the challenge here is precisely that: Is your city/economy stable enough to fulfil pharaoh's request? Can your city cope with some earthquake or an invasion? I liked Zeus' feature of the 'miliz' - that is working people go to the arms, so you can recruit an army but lose workforce, so again the challenge: is your city good enough to cope with that? Zeus would be really boring without these events, and it's this what made people create so many custom adventures for this game.

So these events tell a story somehow, oops, no. Should say it differently: The scripted events are far more fun if they are part of a story, so you know why your neighbour invades you if you have denied his requests or attacked his friends.

[Traxia]

That used to drive me crazy in zeus.

I used to pay off my enemies until I had a strong enough army and then I used to use that...

Anybody else manage to max out the palace on horsemen? *smug grin*

[tobing]

That used to drive me crazy in zeus...
And this is another example of people having different taste. Somehow I always preferred Pharao/Cleopatra to all other CB games, and the events of Zeus make one reason for this.

[Traxia]

What used to get me in Pharaoh is that 1, you always had to have a house near your industry for thebuilding to be populated and 2, you could evolve your main workforce to nobles by accident, thus killing your production and eventually your city and 3, the houses never evolved sensibly so you always had houses of one surrounding a 4 square house instead of 2 4 square houses.

The fact that you had two different types of housing was a god send in zeus.

[tobing]

I have to agree for 3. The introduction of two types of housing was sort of simplification as well as the removal of workforce seekers. In pharaoh I like both of these concepts, because a mixed city is much more lively (and you can control expansion of houses), and especially the workforce seekers make for another challenge: How to build your city without (or just as few as possible) these little houses everywhere.