This thread is largely inspired by the I disagree with "gameplay > story" thread. Or, to be more specific, it is inspired by it's common response that goes something along the lines of "Game stories suck, just read books/watch movies or shows". (Mods, I realize this thread may be somewhat similar in topic, but enigmatic's thread is about whether story can outweigh gameplay, while I'm talking specifically how story itself in games can be valuable. I hope this is enough of a difference to justify the separate thread). This comment is both irritating and wrong. It's not incorrect, because you should be reading books and watching movies and TV shows regardless of anything else. But the context in which it's used is meant to devalue games as narrative mediums as a whole, acting as if they are essentially worthless in that regard. And this is bullshit and I'm concerned by the number of people who don't realize it. I warn you now that this is going to be a long post, but it deserves to be, because stories are important, including ones in videogames.
So. To explain why and really delve in the worthwhileness of games as stories, we first must answer the underlying implicit question hanging in the air: What makes a good story? Simple question, but one so nebulous and broad and far reaching that there is never going to be a simple answer. I've been analyzing stories on a deep level for a very long time, and I’ve never found a perfect method of determining quality, a solid set of universal standards that every thing can be measured by. Any time I thought I did, I eventually encountered some book or show that broke the rules and yet was still wonderful somehow. So I've long since given up trying to apply some ridged set of loops that every story ought to jump through, and simply let the book or movie or game take me where I wanted to go on it's own. I judge my experience from there. And by making my personal experience with the story take center place in my judging of it, it means it's different for everyone, which is the position I think most people take anyway.
So, is what I'm saying what makes for a good story essentially subjective? Well...technically yes, but I don't really want to reduce it to something that simple. The danger of this is becoming complacent and not paying attention to the performance which you are given, instead merely being reactive to how you feel. This is something I've noticed on this forum (both gaming and OT) quite often. In any given thread asking for the quality of something, whether it is games or movies or books, the vast majority of the posts are to the effect of "X was pretty good" "X WAS AMAZING HOLY SHIT" "Man, what a waste of time x was" or something to that effect. X might be a whole experience or an actor or scene or an aspect of storytelling or whathaveyou. People just threw it under a spectrum of 'good', 'bad' and everything inbetween those two points. Some posts would often 'support' their judgements by explaining it had (insert adjective here) (insert subject here). Bad dialogue, bad pacing, good characterization, alright plot, etc. To me, this is insufficient as analysis, because there is no universal way of deciding the quality of any of that. Lets take Uncharted as an example. Suppose two people both say the dialogue is good. One likes it because it makes him laugh. It's good because it's snappy and witty and quotable. Meanwhile, The other person thinks it's only marginally funny, but is impressed with how skillfully written it is.It manages to exposit plot and setting details while building characterization to the main characters. The first person never even paid attention to how it characterized the relationship of Nathan Drake and Flynn, for example, and is immaterial to him. Both are valid interpretations of what is 'good dialogue', but the two are not in agreement with each other, so simply saying "the dialogue was good" was good is not enough. And there are several, possibly hundreds, of possible things you can focus on in any given piece of a story, each of them with dozens and dozens of possible ways to evaluate it. Narrative quality isn't a hierarchy, a simple binary spectrum of 0 and 1 has never been enough to convey the quality of even the simplest of stories. It's simply too shallow a comment to mean anything on it's own.
Furthermore, by becoming complacent to simply react to stories instead of reflecting on them, it seems there is a far likelier chance of simply not understanding and misremembering the material presented. Just yesterday I had a discussion with a friend who was trying to convince me that a character from breaking bad was a control freak, and while he used an example where the character was indeed trying to influence someone at first, but then ended the scene with peacefully accepting the other character's decision upon hearing their reasoning for that decision. He had literally just finished watching that scene too. He let the fact of his dislike of the character override and misinterpret the actual scene. This is one example, but I've seen hundreds of such lapses in memory even in shows or games or movies they literally just saw. And I don't mean forgetting minor details, I mean flat out misinterpretting things that the game either never suggested or even worked in opposition to. If you thought Last of Us was about Joel planning to raise Ellie so she can be his lover (yes, I've seriously seen people with this interpretation of the game), then I want to see the goddamn receipts. Either I missed a large part of the game, or you have. And just to be clear, this is normal for everyone. Memory is highly unreliable, so it behooves you to work to improve it. That's what reflection does. Speaking anecdotally, the more I see any given reviewer go into details explaining why he felt the way he felt rather merely describing what he felt, the more often I feel they paint an accurate representation of the game, and this is even when I don't agree with their conclusion. This isn't universal, because misinterpretation can happen even with blather-mouths such as myself, it does seem to be the tendency as far as I can tell.
So, this is my recommended method of measuring a story. Experience, reflect, express. The experience doesn't always gel with what my preconceived notions of what good storytelling is. A deus ex machina could happen in one story, and then in another and then in a third. I may acknowledge first two as flaws, but one might not be a significant detriment to a story, while the other might ruin it completely, and the third might actually not be a flaw at all but a rare proper usage of that trope. The possible reasons for the different interpretation could fill a book. It depends on the context. Obviously, not everyone will follow this method. Perhaps someone found those universal sets of rules that work for every story they ever encounter that have always eluded me. I only ask, when you make your reply, you atleast put effort into explaining why, whatever method of judging a story you may use, you view to be the right one. If nothing else, I promise it will lead to more interesting discussion than an empty back and forth of "I like this" and "No, that sucks".
Now, understanding how I interpret stories, I hope it's clear why I dislike that remark. It implicitly invalidates gaming storytelling experience. I've had plenty of gaming experiences of storytelling that matter to me, and I don't like those memories thrown under the bus like that. I don't like the implication that developers shouldn't try to make more of those experiences simply because they will never be as good as books or TV shows in certain respects. I don't like that they discourage potential players from seeking out those experiences. I don't like that most of them don't even bother explaining how or why books or movies are better, or which, or why those in particular, or why games don't even have the potential to measure up. And most of all, I just don't like the snobbery of it, carrying the implication that anyone of taste must inevitably enjoy those more. It just reminds me of the times where people scoffed at the very idea of comic books being anything more than power fantasies for children and idiot manchildren or when the same was said for fantasy books. And both those genre's crushingly destroyed those notions by proving they can be as intelligent and well written and thought provoking and intimate as any classic novel or whatever was held up to be the standard of 'real art'. Whose to say that gaming can't shatter those expectations and grow as a medium? And to my mind, it already has. It just need to do more.
Here are some analysis on game stories that I fully recommend watching. I won't summarize them fully, but I will point out atleast a few things that struck me as examples of skillful storytelling that they have pointed out. Careful, because they do contain spoilers.
This is one of my favorite analysis of Metal Gear Solid 2. Kojima utilized some narrative techniques flat out masterfully, such as misdirection, unreliable narration, symbolism, messing with the fourth wall....and he has somehow managed to gamify it! The fact that whether you play the tanker mission affects the cutscenes (and thus the interpretation of the story, even if on a minor level) is a moment of player interaction with the game that successfully incorperates a rather significant plotpoint seamlessly into the narrative. This review, in turn, helped me realize how much more smoothly Raiden plays once he gets the sword because he's no longer trying to imitate Snake. The awkward aspects of are turned from being flaws into effective methods of characterizing Raiden through gameplay. The game made character development made into a gameplay mechanic! Also, check out his MGS3 analysis, that focus' on the game's innovative use of camp.
This Last of Us analysis looks at how the game uses immersion on the deepest level possibly ever seen in gaming. It is a matter of both player interaction and characterization. All fiction struggles to make you 'believe' in a matter you know is false, and he makes a good argument for why ND managed to do that better than any other game. It accounts for how gameplay, cutscenes, scripted environmental dialogue, optional dialogue, the action set piece moments, and how even the multiplayer all come cohesively together in one unite to characterize and develop the characters (even the nameless basic enemies you play against in the single player) and reinforce it's themes. On a personal level, it even affected him so much that it changed his mind on wanting a daughter. When this was first posted, people derided that, but they shouldn't. This is the job of fiction, to offer us experiences we have not have had, or might not ever have had, and the idea that a game affected someone on such an enormous level is a testament to it's significance to that person.
My final example with missile command is comparatively short and simple. It's only 5 minutes long, compared to the other two monster length videoes. I feel this is important because MGS2 and LoU are both extremely complex games conveying rather complex stories. What about small games? Extra Credits does a lot of video game design analysis, a good chunk of it story related, and they have fully convinced me of how even simple mechanics can be used to pose complex narratives. This is minimalism at it's finest, showing how a simple tower defense game can be used to convey extremely harsh philosophical questions. Even a game with one character, as blank slate as can be while providing context, is made potentially complex through player interaction. What is narrative fiction if not merely getting into someone else's head? The characterization of the Commander the player is playing through is done by the player as he makes the gameplay decisions.
I wanted to include only games that I played and/or analyzes that I could back, but the fact is that there is a lot that's on my bucketlist that I haven't played. I'm sure there is a fantastic one for Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite (I really vaguely remember seeing some kind of video on B:I, but I can't seem to find it :/). Spec-Op's The Line has been in the backlog for simply forever, and I've heard lots of great things about that. I've only played Papers Please for a few minutes, but I can already see lots of ways in which it can be subjected to good analysis. I heard Two Brothers is pretty good. Dark Souls apparently has some impressive storytelling via the environment. And hundreds of others I'm forgetting at the moment or just not aware of. Whoever is inclined to, feel free to offer your own.
However, you might notice I'm pointing out the biggest games, the ones that everyone already knows of and are already held in high regard. You might not agree and contend with the notion for any of these (and that's perfectly okay, btw. There is contention in everything. Not everyone thinks the wire is all that good, or are impressed with Citizen Kane or think much of Lord of the Rings), but they are the ones that are the best of the best according to the general gaming public. But I don't want to send a false message, that only the best are the ones that are worth while, because that's wrong. This is also the nature of the statement that sparked this whole post. After all, if you want a story, why not go for the VERY best, right? This is logic that seems sound at first, but falls apart when you think about it deeper. As explained earlier, 'best' isn't an objective metric anyone can use, and even if it was, it isn't a monolithic quality. Any kind of story might be merely mediocre in all parts, but in one particular scene, everything works just right and brings an extremely satisfying resolution to a character. Maybe you aren't invested in the ongoing plot, but are very curious about the world in which it takes place. Maybe it has the best music you've ever heard, or the most striking visuals. Or maybe outside life is playing a role. This can mean something as broad as the culture you grew up in (tropes that are commonplace and cliche to the eastern audience can be highly creative to a western) to something personal where a typical scene of father--son reconciliation might be regarded with indifference by the majority of audience, but one person who is having similar issues of closeness with his own father might be more affected by it. And while these things can be distinguished from other aspects of the narrative, they do not exist in isolation. They are interconnected and affect the story as a whole. There is no getting away from this. But even if there was, there is the simple fact is that each experience is unique. For example, maybe, say, MGS isn't a perfect series, or even perfect games individually. But it doesn't matter because there will never be another MGS. There may be games with some similar themes or plots, but there will not be another MGS. Even if someone flat out tries to copy MGS as closely as possible except all it's 'flaws' as they see them, It might even succeed and be 'better'. But the original MGS could hold a special place in your life that has nothing to do with whether it was the best game, but the fact that it was meaningful to you in a way that nothing else can be. Sometimes, being the better story is not as important as being the 'right' story.
Besides, if only the best matters, you might as well just watch the Wire over and over again for the rest of your life. Never see another movie except Schindler's List. Never read another book besides 1984. You'd become decadent in your own wealth. The very nature of innovation is trying new paths that you aren't sure will work out. That's how the creation of everything you seen before is made. People have to stumble and fall to learn the worth of walking. There is value in even the most abject of failures. And no one lives their life subsisting only on the 'best' of something.Variety in quality is simply the nature of human experience, and even necessary to truly appreciate what the 'best' really is.
So this next section is dedicated to the imperfect gems. I want to erase any remaining doubt you may have that game's stories are not worth telling merely because they aren't perfect by pointing out the value by providing just a few examples of games that are interesting or mean something to me. Again, I hope that other posters feel inclined to add their own meaningful experiences to this list.
Bayonetta. If you've been following the gaming press about her character at all, you know there is a huge controversy about whether she is empowering or just cliche male gaze bait. And you will find almost no one disagreeing that her narrative is catastrophically told. However, I think Bayonetta is a testament to self-empowerment. The plot of Bayonetta has her guarding a child, who is eventually revealed to be herself from childhood, who thinks Bayonetta is her mother. Of all the arguments, back and forth, that debate whether Bayonetta is an empowering figure, for me this clinched it. She uses herself as a role model for herself, and she does it because she finds herself awesome. This is a fantastic and unique characterization, and I think it is why Bayonetta is hailed as a great character for many people, despite the poor effects the game's plot uses that characterization for. Also, on a more minor scale, it has some seriously deep worldbuilding that it bizarrely never uses.
Devil May Cry 3 is one of the best and most important action games of all time, but while everyone (rightfully) fell in love with the game's action, I feel many poeple don't seem to notice that it has the most competently told story in action games. GuardianE made a great post on how he's an effective rival, but he focus' on how they bounce off each other in terms of combat, the actual story is pretty well told. Dante develops from a bored drifter to someone who has awakened to justice after watching and developing a subtle friendship with Lady. Lady grows out of her simplistic view of good and evil regarding demon. And while Vergil does not develop, he's characterized very subtly. There is good use of dramatic irony of how he strives to become like his father through pursuit of power. But power wasn't what defined Sparda, but his actions to defend the humans, and when Dante awakens to justice, he becomes more like Sparda despite actually having wanted to avoid becoming like him, and gaining true power that Vergil fruitlessly sought, which makes Vergil a tragic character in a way. This isn't revelatory stuff like LoU or anything, but it is a solid basis of an anime-esque gothic action story with some measure of depth to it, in the same vein as....a good batman story, I suppose. Squandered potential, the anime and DMC4(though it did give us Uncle Dante, which is another example of the same point I am making).
Raiden from Metal Gear Rising. In case you haven't noticed, I really like action games. MGR is kind of a redemption story after what MGS4 did to Raiden, bringing his character back into fold of what went on in MGS2. However, the thing I really like about him is that he's unique as an action game character because he is possibly the most human of the big action franchise heroes. He's just the butt of many a joke throughout the game. This is interesting to me because most games, especially action games, are power fantasies that almost unwaverly praise the game characters awesomeness. Here, game characters can mock him, he can do stupid and silly things, the main boss fucking punts him like a football complete with cheers from the crowds...and that does nothing to lessen the effects of his badass moments. I personally hope other games take note of this and allow the some comedic stuff to happen to their heroes more often.
God of War. If anyone knows me, they will know I hate this series (or atleast it's character. The gameplay is mediocre to alright for the most part) and have since the release of the first game. So why is it on here? Because it's influential to me. When I was young and I first played it, I was upset that people liked it. Immature, but I was a kid. So I wanted to 'prove' how GoW was actually bad, and it was one of the stepping stones to me learning to analyze combat systems and storytelling to point out it's flaws. I might have not been making this thread (and many others) if not for my dislike of this series, and I've come to value my capacity for analysis very much. I can't think of a better personal example of how a game that failed to capture me can still affect me so much. I wouldn't be the same person I am now.
Lastly, I'll just link an analysis I did before for just one part of ME3, because this post is long enough as it is, but it's possibly the most important example, atleast to me. But Mass Effect is a DEEPLY flawed series. I was right there with everyone when they said the ending ruined the franchise. For some, this is hyperbole, but for me, it pretty much is true. I haven't played anything else ME related on principle. But the fond memories and the things I've taken away from it are never going to fade, and the linked analysis is just one example of many.
Throughout this post, I've given or pointed to examples of potential social commentary, political commentary, philosophical musings, of narrative structure and immersion, of character development both segregated from and incorporated into gameplay, immersion, personal attachment, life changing experiences, creative narrative conceptions, inventive storytelling techniques observed by myself or other people, and I've only covered a few games with a few people's opinions. There are hundreds of thousands. It is obviously, excessively evident and quite empirically wrong to devalue game stories in view of these experiences. There is too much that out there that is interesting or life changing or impeccably well done or creative to ignore. You don't have to agree with all of it and few, if any, are perfect but you can't just disregard them all. There are problems with storytelling in the medium of gaming, I'm not blind to what they are. I will agree that books and movies and TV are all mediums who have more stories and more versatility in their stories and the best of literary fiction is still umatched by anything games have offered. But never let it be said that stories aren't important to games. Meaning is the essence of story, and games have long carried that and will continue to do so. And they'll get better at it. As far as I'm concerned, we've already had atleast a few game stories so well crafted that can stand proudly as serious examples of what the medium can do. And even if they have something preventing them to reach the height of other mediums, what of it? They've done enough to make people care about a crew of aliens, they've managed to capture characterization and even character development in ways that no other medium could possibly hope to, and can engage you in worlds that can be explored beyond any novelist or movie director's dreams. And no one knows what potential lays beyond the horizon, when we'll have some great artist that does something with games that has never been done before. We have no idea how far this medium will go, only that it has the tools to go far.
So if you don't think game stories are worth while, start paying attention.
So. To explain why and really delve in the worthwhileness of games as stories, we first must answer the underlying implicit question hanging in the air: What makes a good story? Simple question, but one so nebulous and broad and far reaching that there is never going to be a simple answer. I've been analyzing stories on a deep level for a very long time, and I’ve never found a perfect method of determining quality, a solid set of universal standards that every thing can be measured by. Any time I thought I did, I eventually encountered some book or show that broke the rules and yet was still wonderful somehow. So I've long since given up trying to apply some ridged set of loops that every story ought to jump through, and simply let the book or movie or game take me where I wanted to go on it's own. I judge my experience from there. And by making my personal experience with the story take center place in my judging of it, it means it's different for everyone, which is the position I think most people take anyway.
So, is what I'm saying what makes for a good story essentially subjective? Well...technically yes, but I don't really want to reduce it to something that simple. The danger of this is becoming complacent and not paying attention to the performance which you are given, instead merely being reactive to how you feel. This is something I've noticed on this forum (both gaming and OT) quite often. In any given thread asking for the quality of something, whether it is games or movies or books, the vast majority of the posts are to the effect of "X was pretty good" "X WAS AMAZING HOLY SHIT" "Man, what a waste of time x was" or something to that effect. X might be a whole experience or an actor or scene or an aspect of storytelling or whathaveyou. People just threw it under a spectrum of 'good', 'bad' and everything inbetween those two points. Some posts would often 'support' their judgements by explaining it had (insert adjective here) (insert subject here). Bad dialogue, bad pacing, good characterization, alright plot, etc. To me, this is insufficient as analysis, because there is no universal way of deciding the quality of any of that. Lets take Uncharted as an example. Suppose two people both say the dialogue is good. One likes it because it makes him laugh. It's good because it's snappy and witty and quotable. Meanwhile, The other person thinks it's only marginally funny, but is impressed with how skillfully written it is.It manages to exposit plot and setting details while building characterization to the main characters. The first person never even paid attention to how it characterized the relationship of Nathan Drake and Flynn, for example, and is immaterial to him. Both are valid interpretations of what is 'good dialogue', but the two are not in agreement with each other, so simply saying "the dialogue was good" was good is not enough. And there are several, possibly hundreds, of possible things you can focus on in any given piece of a story, each of them with dozens and dozens of possible ways to evaluate it. Narrative quality isn't a hierarchy, a simple binary spectrum of 0 and 1 has never been enough to convey the quality of even the simplest of stories. It's simply too shallow a comment to mean anything on it's own.
Furthermore, by becoming complacent to simply react to stories instead of reflecting on them, it seems there is a far likelier chance of simply not understanding and misremembering the material presented. Just yesterday I had a discussion with a friend who was trying to convince me that a character from breaking bad was a control freak, and while he used an example where the character was indeed trying to influence someone at first, but then ended the scene with peacefully accepting the other character's decision upon hearing their reasoning for that decision. He had literally just finished watching that scene too. He let the fact of his dislike of the character override and misinterpret the actual scene. This is one example, but I've seen hundreds of such lapses in memory even in shows or games or movies they literally just saw. And I don't mean forgetting minor details, I mean flat out misinterpretting things that the game either never suggested or even worked in opposition to. If you thought Last of Us was about Joel planning to raise Ellie so she can be his lover (yes, I've seriously seen people with this interpretation of the game), then I want to see the goddamn receipts. Either I missed a large part of the game, or you have. And just to be clear, this is normal for everyone. Memory is highly unreliable, so it behooves you to work to improve it. That's what reflection does. Speaking anecdotally, the more I see any given reviewer go into details explaining why he felt the way he felt rather merely describing what he felt, the more often I feel they paint an accurate representation of the game, and this is even when I don't agree with their conclusion. This isn't universal, because misinterpretation can happen even with blather-mouths such as myself, it does seem to be the tendency as far as I can tell.
So, this is my recommended method of measuring a story. Experience, reflect, express. The experience doesn't always gel with what my preconceived notions of what good storytelling is. A deus ex machina could happen in one story, and then in another and then in a third. I may acknowledge first two as flaws, but one might not be a significant detriment to a story, while the other might ruin it completely, and the third might actually not be a flaw at all but a rare proper usage of that trope. The possible reasons for the different interpretation could fill a book. It depends on the context. Obviously, not everyone will follow this method. Perhaps someone found those universal sets of rules that work for every story they ever encounter that have always eluded me. I only ask, when you make your reply, you atleast put effort into explaining why, whatever method of judging a story you may use, you view to be the right one. If nothing else, I promise it will lead to more interesting discussion than an empty back and forth of "I like this" and "No, that sucks".
Now, understanding how I interpret stories, I hope it's clear why I dislike that remark. It implicitly invalidates gaming storytelling experience. I've had plenty of gaming experiences of storytelling that matter to me, and I don't like those memories thrown under the bus like that. I don't like the implication that developers shouldn't try to make more of those experiences simply because they will never be as good as books or TV shows in certain respects. I don't like that they discourage potential players from seeking out those experiences. I don't like that most of them don't even bother explaining how or why books or movies are better, or which, or why those in particular, or why games don't even have the potential to measure up. And most of all, I just don't like the snobbery of it, carrying the implication that anyone of taste must inevitably enjoy those more. It just reminds me of the times where people scoffed at the very idea of comic books being anything more than power fantasies for children and idiot manchildren or when the same was said for fantasy books. And both those genre's crushingly destroyed those notions by proving they can be as intelligent and well written and thought provoking and intimate as any classic novel or whatever was held up to be the standard of 'real art'. Whose to say that gaming can't shatter those expectations and grow as a medium? And to my mind, it already has. It just need to do more.
Here are some analysis on game stories that I fully recommend watching. I won't summarize them fully, but I will point out atleast a few things that struck me as examples of skillful storytelling that they have pointed out. Careful, because they do contain spoilers.
This is one of my favorite analysis of Metal Gear Solid 2. Kojima utilized some narrative techniques flat out masterfully, such as misdirection, unreliable narration, symbolism, messing with the fourth wall....and he has somehow managed to gamify it! The fact that whether you play the tanker mission affects the cutscenes (and thus the interpretation of the story, even if on a minor level) is a moment of player interaction with the game that successfully incorperates a rather significant plotpoint seamlessly into the narrative. This review, in turn, helped me realize how much more smoothly Raiden plays once he gets the sword because he's no longer trying to imitate Snake. The awkward aspects of are turned from being flaws into effective methods of characterizing Raiden through gameplay. The game made character development made into a gameplay mechanic! Also, check out his MGS3 analysis, that focus' on the game's innovative use of camp.
This Last of Us analysis looks at how the game uses immersion on the deepest level possibly ever seen in gaming. It is a matter of both player interaction and characterization. All fiction struggles to make you 'believe' in a matter you know is false, and he makes a good argument for why ND managed to do that better than any other game. It accounts for how gameplay, cutscenes, scripted environmental dialogue, optional dialogue, the action set piece moments, and how even the multiplayer all come cohesively together in one unite to characterize and develop the characters (even the nameless basic enemies you play against in the single player) and reinforce it's themes. On a personal level, it even affected him so much that it changed his mind on wanting a daughter. When this was first posted, people derided that, but they shouldn't. This is the job of fiction, to offer us experiences we have not have had, or might not ever have had, and the idea that a game affected someone on such an enormous level is a testament to it's significance to that person.
My final example with missile command is comparatively short and simple. It's only 5 minutes long, compared to the other two monster length videoes. I feel this is important because MGS2 and LoU are both extremely complex games conveying rather complex stories. What about small games? Extra Credits does a lot of video game design analysis, a good chunk of it story related, and they have fully convinced me of how even simple mechanics can be used to pose complex narratives. This is minimalism at it's finest, showing how a simple tower defense game can be used to convey extremely harsh philosophical questions. Even a game with one character, as blank slate as can be while providing context, is made potentially complex through player interaction. What is narrative fiction if not merely getting into someone else's head? The characterization of the Commander the player is playing through is done by the player as he makes the gameplay decisions.
I wanted to include only games that I played and/or analyzes that I could back, but the fact is that there is a lot that's on my bucketlist that I haven't played. I'm sure there is a fantastic one for Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite (I really vaguely remember seeing some kind of video on B:I, but I can't seem to find it :/). Spec-Op's The Line has been in the backlog for simply forever, and I've heard lots of great things about that. I've only played Papers Please for a few minutes, but I can already see lots of ways in which it can be subjected to good analysis. I heard Two Brothers is pretty good. Dark Souls apparently has some impressive storytelling via the environment. And hundreds of others I'm forgetting at the moment or just not aware of. Whoever is inclined to, feel free to offer your own.
However, you might notice I'm pointing out the biggest games, the ones that everyone already knows of and are already held in high regard. You might not agree and contend with the notion for any of these (and that's perfectly okay, btw. There is contention in everything. Not everyone thinks the wire is all that good, or are impressed with Citizen Kane or think much of Lord of the Rings), but they are the ones that are the best of the best according to the general gaming public. But I don't want to send a false message, that only the best are the ones that are worth while, because that's wrong. This is also the nature of the statement that sparked this whole post. After all, if you want a story, why not go for the VERY best, right? This is logic that seems sound at first, but falls apart when you think about it deeper. As explained earlier, 'best' isn't an objective metric anyone can use, and even if it was, it isn't a monolithic quality. Any kind of story might be merely mediocre in all parts, but in one particular scene, everything works just right and brings an extremely satisfying resolution to a character. Maybe you aren't invested in the ongoing plot, but are very curious about the world in which it takes place. Maybe it has the best music you've ever heard, or the most striking visuals. Or maybe outside life is playing a role. This can mean something as broad as the culture you grew up in (tropes that are commonplace and cliche to the eastern audience can be highly creative to a western) to something personal where a typical scene of father--son reconciliation might be regarded with indifference by the majority of audience, but one person who is having similar issues of closeness with his own father might be more affected by it. And while these things can be distinguished from other aspects of the narrative, they do not exist in isolation. They are interconnected and affect the story as a whole. There is no getting away from this. But even if there was, there is the simple fact is that each experience is unique. For example, maybe, say, MGS isn't a perfect series, or even perfect games individually. But it doesn't matter because there will never be another MGS. There may be games with some similar themes or plots, but there will not be another MGS. Even if someone flat out tries to copy MGS as closely as possible except all it's 'flaws' as they see them, It might even succeed and be 'better'. But the original MGS could hold a special place in your life that has nothing to do with whether it was the best game, but the fact that it was meaningful to you in a way that nothing else can be. Sometimes, being the better story is not as important as being the 'right' story.
Besides, if only the best matters, you might as well just watch the Wire over and over again for the rest of your life. Never see another movie except Schindler's List. Never read another book besides 1984. You'd become decadent in your own wealth. The very nature of innovation is trying new paths that you aren't sure will work out. That's how the creation of everything you seen before is made. People have to stumble and fall to learn the worth of walking. There is value in even the most abject of failures. And no one lives their life subsisting only on the 'best' of something.Variety in quality is simply the nature of human experience, and even necessary to truly appreciate what the 'best' really is.
So this next section is dedicated to the imperfect gems. I want to erase any remaining doubt you may have that game's stories are not worth telling merely because they aren't perfect by pointing out the value by providing just a few examples of games that are interesting or mean something to me. Again, I hope that other posters feel inclined to add their own meaningful experiences to this list.
Bayonetta. If you've been following the gaming press about her character at all, you know there is a huge controversy about whether she is empowering or just cliche male gaze bait. And you will find almost no one disagreeing that her narrative is catastrophically told. However, I think Bayonetta is a testament to self-empowerment. The plot of Bayonetta has her guarding a child, who is eventually revealed to be herself from childhood, who thinks Bayonetta is her mother. Of all the arguments, back and forth, that debate whether Bayonetta is an empowering figure, for me this clinched it. She uses herself as a role model for herself, and she does it because she finds herself awesome. This is a fantastic and unique characterization, and I think it is why Bayonetta is hailed as a great character for many people, despite the poor effects the game's plot uses that characterization for. Also, on a more minor scale, it has some seriously deep worldbuilding that it bizarrely never uses.
Devil May Cry 3 is one of the best and most important action games of all time, but while everyone (rightfully) fell in love with the game's action, I feel many poeple don't seem to notice that it has the most competently told story in action games. GuardianE made a great post on how he's an effective rival, but he focus' on how they bounce off each other in terms of combat, the actual story is pretty well told. Dante develops from a bored drifter to someone who has awakened to justice after watching and developing a subtle friendship with Lady. Lady grows out of her simplistic view of good and evil regarding demon. And while Vergil does not develop, he's characterized very subtly. There is good use of dramatic irony of how he strives to become like his father through pursuit of power. But power wasn't what defined Sparda, but his actions to defend the humans, and when Dante awakens to justice, he becomes more like Sparda despite actually having wanted to avoid becoming like him, and gaining true power that Vergil fruitlessly sought, which makes Vergil a tragic character in a way. This isn't revelatory stuff like LoU or anything, but it is a solid basis of an anime-esque gothic action story with some measure of depth to it, in the same vein as....a good batman story, I suppose. Squandered potential, the anime and DMC4(though it did give us Uncle Dante, which is another example of the same point I am making).
Raiden from Metal Gear Rising. In case you haven't noticed, I really like action games. MGR is kind of a redemption story after what MGS4 did to Raiden, bringing his character back into fold of what went on in MGS2. However, the thing I really like about him is that he's unique as an action game character because he is possibly the most human of the big action franchise heroes. He's just the butt of many a joke throughout the game. This is interesting to me because most games, especially action games, are power fantasies that almost unwaverly praise the game characters awesomeness. Here, game characters can mock him, he can do stupid and silly things, the main boss fucking punts him like a football complete with cheers from the crowds...and that does nothing to lessen the effects of his badass moments. I personally hope other games take note of this and allow the some comedic stuff to happen to their heroes more often.
God of War. If anyone knows me, they will know I hate this series (or atleast it's character. The gameplay is mediocre to alright for the most part) and have since the release of the first game. So why is it on here? Because it's influential to me. When I was young and I first played it, I was upset that people liked it. Immature, but I was a kid. So I wanted to 'prove' how GoW was actually bad, and it was one of the stepping stones to me learning to analyze combat systems and storytelling to point out it's flaws. I might have not been making this thread (and many others) if not for my dislike of this series, and I've come to value my capacity for analysis very much. I can't think of a better personal example of how a game that failed to capture me can still affect me so much. I wouldn't be the same person I am now.
Lastly, I'll just link an analysis I did before for just one part of ME3, because this post is long enough as it is, but it's possibly the most important example, atleast to me. But Mass Effect is a DEEPLY flawed series. I was right there with everyone when they said the ending ruined the franchise. For some, this is hyperbole, but for me, it pretty much is true. I haven't played anything else ME related on principle. But the fond memories and the things I've taken away from it are never going to fade, and the linked analysis is just one example of many.
Throughout this post, I've given or pointed to examples of potential social commentary, political commentary, philosophical musings, of narrative structure and immersion, of character development both segregated from and incorporated into gameplay, immersion, personal attachment, life changing experiences, creative narrative conceptions, inventive storytelling techniques observed by myself or other people, and I've only covered a few games with a few people's opinions. There are hundreds of thousands. It is obviously, excessively evident and quite empirically wrong to devalue game stories in view of these experiences. There is too much that out there that is interesting or life changing or impeccably well done or creative to ignore. You don't have to agree with all of it and few, if any, are perfect but you can't just disregard them all. There are problems with storytelling in the medium of gaming, I'm not blind to what they are. I will agree that books and movies and TV are all mediums who have more stories and more versatility in their stories and the best of literary fiction is still umatched by anything games have offered. But never let it be said that stories aren't important to games. Meaning is the essence of story, and games have long carried that and will continue to do so. And they'll get better at it. As far as I'm concerned, we've already had atleast a few game stories so well crafted that can stand proudly as serious examples of what the medium can do. And even if they have something preventing them to reach the height of other mediums, what of it? They've done enough to make people care about a crew of aliens, they've managed to capture characterization and even character development in ways that no other medium could possibly hope to, and can engage you in worlds that can be explored beyond any novelist or movie director's dreams. And no one knows what potential lays beyond the horizon, when we'll have some great artist that does something with games that has never been done before. We have no idea how far this medium will go, only that it has the tools to go far.
So if you don't think game stories are worth while, start paying attention.
