Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A (GOOD) STORY? (IN A VIDEO GAME)
Posts
Synonysis
363
Synonysis
View playlists
CloseHi, guys. Just wondering about what makes a good story. So in your opinion, what do you think makes a (good) story? Is there something particular that you hope to get out of a video game story?
Desertopa
775
Are we talking strictly in terms of the main plot, or are we including broader elements of story expression?
What I care about most in terms of enjoying the story of a game is a good sense of atmosphere, or character.
An unoriginal plot and setting, if executed with enough character, will still be fun, whereas a game with an original and brilliantly conceived plot, where the dialogue feels like filler and the setting feels like it's constructed out of prop board, might give the player some interesting ideas, but the game will still be a slog.
Atmosphere isn't simply a matter of writing interesting dialogue and settings though (otherwise I'd just have said "dialogue and settings.") It's more about... drawing the player's attention to the things that reinforce the sort of experience you want the game to evoke, and away from things that don't. For instance, in an epic high fantasy adventure, you can give the game a world map which features eight kingdoms and a smattering of unattached villages representing primitive tribespeople, reclusive elves, warlike barbarians or whatever, none of these locations having clear political or economic relations to each other, and the player very likely won't find anything amiss, because the character of the story doesn't encourage players to think about questions like "How the hell can you have a village of warlike barbarians here when there are no identifiable neighbors they could possibly be at war with?" or "Why do international relations seem to basically not exist in this world?" As long as each location plays its role in the narrative suitably, the player shouldn't end up worrying too much about how much sense the whole setting would make in other contexts.
If the basis of the story is a complex political conflict though, and you still have a world map consisting only of a handful of kingdoms and villages, you're a lot more likely to give the player a sense of artificiality. The setting isn't well constructed for the type of story it's supposed to support, and the player's attention will be attracted to places you don't want it to go.
There are some particular elements I particularly favor or disfavor (for instance, I'm pretty much sick or post-apocalyptic stories, and rarely enjoy them regardless of their quality,) but I don't think it's these sort of specific elements which determine whether or not a story is actually "good."
What I care about most in terms of enjoying the story of a game is a good sense of atmosphere, or character.
An unoriginal plot and setting, if executed with enough character, will still be fun, whereas a game with an original and brilliantly conceived plot, where the dialogue feels like filler and the setting feels like it's constructed out of prop board, might give the player some interesting ideas, but the game will still be a slog.
Atmosphere isn't simply a matter of writing interesting dialogue and settings though (otherwise I'd just have said "dialogue and settings.") It's more about... drawing the player's attention to the things that reinforce the sort of experience you want the game to evoke, and away from things that don't. For instance, in an epic high fantasy adventure, you can give the game a world map which features eight kingdoms and a smattering of unattached villages representing primitive tribespeople, reclusive elves, warlike barbarians or whatever, none of these locations having clear political or economic relations to each other, and the player very likely won't find anything amiss, because the character of the story doesn't encourage players to think about questions like "How the hell can you have a village of warlike barbarians here when there are no identifiable neighbors they could possibly be at war with?" or "Why do international relations seem to basically not exist in this world?" As long as each location plays its role in the narrative suitably, the player shouldn't end up worrying too much about how much sense the whole setting would make in other contexts.
If the basis of the story is a complex political conflict though, and you still have a world map consisting only of a handful of kingdoms and villages, you're a lot more likely to give the player a sense of artificiality. The setting isn't well constructed for the type of story it's supposed to support, and the player's attention will be attracted to places you don't want it to go.
There are some particular elements I particularly favor or disfavor (for instance, I'm pretty much sick or post-apocalyptic stories, and rarely enjoy them regardless of their quality,) but I don't think it's these sort of specific elements which determine whether or not a story is actually "good."
Aegix_Drakan
6037
Personally, I look for characters that I can care about.
If I can well and truly give a damn about the characters, then they will draw me into the world and the rest will follow. If I'm going to be following them around on their journey, I want to enjoy their company and care about their struggles, even if I detest one of the character's motivations/etc. They are my gateway to that games' world. Good writing (especially for dialogue) really helps with that. Incidentally, most games with really well written characters that I can care about also happens to have good writing everywhere else).
I also want to feel like my conflict matters and that I'm doing something worthwhile, and not just erring with no purpose or direction. (Example: Golden Sun Dark Dawn bored me to tears not only because it was piss easy, but also because for a good 10 hours I was chasing after a freaking FEATHER that I could only get on the other side of the world. In that time, I made an enemy of an army, saved a bunch of towns from evil spirits, saved an ancient civilization, escaped an empire's deathtrap...and felt like none of it really mattered. I still have not finished it. I still haven't even gotten the goddamn FEATHER yet. *grumbles*)
If I can well and truly give a damn about the characters, then they will draw me into the world and the rest will follow. If I'm going to be following them around on their journey, I want to enjoy their company and care about their struggles, even if I detest one of the character's motivations/etc. They are my gateway to that games' world. Good writing (especially for dialogue) really helps with that. Incidentally, most games with really well written characters that I can care about also happens to have good writing everywhere else).
I also want to feel like my conflict matters and that I'm doing something worthwhile, and not just erring with no purpose or direction. (Example: Golden Sun Dark Dawn bored me to tears not only because it was piss easy, but also because for a good 10 hours I was chasing after a freaking FEATHER that I could only get on the other side of the world. In that time, I made an enemy of an army, saved a bunch of towns from evil spirits, saved an ancient civilization, escaped an empire's deathtrap...and felt like none of it really mattered. I still have not finished it. I still haven't even gotten the goddamn FEATHER yet. *grumbles*)
Housekeeping
3571
Make characters that are relatable, dynamic, and nuanced.
A note on relatability: characters don't necessarily have to make "the right" decisions, but they have to make decisions that, when we put ourselves in their shoes, we can understand. I'll use Final Fantasy 6 as an extended example throughout this: when you see Terra in the world of ruin, she's lost her will to fight, and she instead chooses to watch over a group of orphaned children. Given the social isolation that Terra experienced because she is half-esper, her decision to stay in a place where she's socially accepted--even depended on--makes sense, even if the player wants her to fight with them again. Because of the destruction that's happened to the world, Terra recognizes that same power inside of herself, and the psychological block she has against using that power again also makes sense. The player might not agree that her separating herself from the conflicts of the world is the right course of action, but we still don't fault her for it, because we know what it's like to feel alone and to finally be accepted, and we also know humanity's capabilities of destruction and the depression that can cause. We can relate.
A note on dynamics: your characters should change from the beginning of the story to the end. This is called a round character; a character that doesn't change is called a flat character. A general rule of writing is that most stories function based on a character moving from state A to state B, and the story is designed to test them so that they make that movement. This doesn't mean that every character has to start being a cynical bastard and change into a bleeding heart looking to save the world. Look at Kefka, for example. Kefka's basic personality is the same at the beginning of the game as it is at the end, but the events of the story have taken Kefka even further down the path of narcissism and nihilism. There's still an arc to his character that makes him interesting to watch as the events of the game unfold.
A note on nuance: your game should be the first time I've seen your character. Inevitably, there are tropes that a character can fall into, but even if you're working with a trope, temper your characters by how they react to the plot. Edgar, for instance, is a rich playboy; this is something we see all the time (The Talented Mr. Ripley unfortunately comes to mind). However, Edgar also has a penchant for machinery. He also has an interesting relationship with his estranged brother. He's also a clever and benevolent leader. Also, also, also. All these "alsos" serve to turn Edgar into a character that we've really only seen once.
As far as plot goes, there are so many different ways you can go. The biggest rule of thumb is to show us something we haven't seen before. Your characters will be doing a lot of the legwork, though, so you could actually show us a ground situation that we have seen before, but the characters' interactions could still make it nuanced. You can have a clever, intricate plot--and it's fine to start with this--but, regardless, make sure to give us characters that engage us. Too, try to make it about something that matters to you--at least thematically. You'll put more feeling into it, and the audience will pick up on it.
A note on relatability: characters don't necessarily have to make "the right" decisions, but they have to make decisions that, when we put ourselves in their shoes, we can understand. I'll use Final Fantasy 6 as an extended example throughout this: when you see Terra in the world of ruin, she's lost her will to fight, and she instead chooses to watch over a group of orphaned children. Given the social isolation that Terra experienced because she is half-esper, her decision to stay in a place where she's socially accepted--even depended on--makes sense, even if the player wants her to fight with them again. Because of the destruction that's happened to the world, Terra recognizes that same power inside of herself, and the psychological block she has against using that power again also makes sense. The player might not agree that her separating herself from the conflicts of the world is the right course of action, but we still don't fault her for it, because we know what it's like to feel alone and to finally be accepted, and we also know humanity's capabilities of destruction and the depression that can cause. We can relate.
A note on dynamics: your characters should change from the beginning of the story to the end. This is called a round character; a character that doesn't change is called a flat character. A general rule of writing is that most stories function based on a character moving from state A to state B, and the story is designed to test them so that they make that movement. This doesn't mean that every character has to start being a cynical bastard and change into a bleeding heart looking to save the world. Look at Kefka, for example. Kefka's basic personality is the same at the beginning of the game as it is at the end, but the events of the story have taken Kefka even further down the path of narcissism and nihilism. There's still an arc to his character that makes him interesting to watch as the events of the game unfold.
A note on nuance: your game should be the first time I've seen your character. Inevitably, there are tropes that a character can fall into, but even if you're working with a trope, temper your characters by how they react to the plot. Edgar, for instance, is a rich playboy; this is something we see all the time (The Talented Mr. Ripley unfortunately comes to mind). However, Edgar also has a penchant for machinery. He also has an interesting relationship with his estranged brother. He's also a clever and benevolent leader. Also, also, also. All these "alsos" serve to turn Edgar into a character that we've really only seen once.
As far as plot goes, there are so many different ways you can go. The biggest rule of thumb is to show us something we haven't seen before. Your characters will be doing a lot of the legwork, though, so you could actually show us a ground situation that we have seen before, but the characters' interactions could still make it nuanced. You can have a clever, intricate plot--and it's fine to start with this--but, regardless, make sure to give us characters that engage us. Too, try to make it about something that matters to you--at least thematically. You'll put more feeling into it, and the audience will pick up on it.
Desertopa
775
author=Housekeeping
A note on dynamics: your characters should change from the beginning of the story to the end. This is called a round character; a character that doesn't change is called a flat character.
This is a bit of a nitpick, but a character who changes from the beginning of a story to the end is a "dynamic" character, while one who stays the same is a "static" character. "Flat" versus "round" are for describing whether the character has depth of personality versus a few basic distinguishing traits. A character can be static and round, or dynamic and flat (for example, an NPC whose only distinguishing trait is greed learns their lesson and stops being greedy.)
A character doesn't necessarily have to be dynamic in order to engage the audience. In the story I'm working on right now, for instance, the main character doesn't really change much over the course of the story (although a lot of the other characters change around him,) but as the audience learns more about him, it puts his actions from earlier on into a different context. By the end of the story, he's still largely the same person he was to start with, but at the same time, he's very different from what the audience was led to believe. Note that I'm definitely not saying that plot twists are a substitute for good characterization, but the ultimate goal is to get the audience invested in the characters, and having them change over the course of the story is a means to that end, rather than the end unto itself.
Humanity. I like stories that are about people and personal struggles. Struggles for the fate of the world are grand, but they suffer without characters that are believable. Not every character should necessarily be likable, but they should make sense and act like they make sense.
Housekeeping
3571
author=Desertopaauthor=HousekeepingThis is a bit of a nitpick, but a character who changes from the beginning of a story to the end is a "dynamic" character, while one who stays the same is a "static" character. "Flat" versus "round" are for describing whether the character has depth of personality versus a few basic distinguishing traits. A character can be static and round, or dynamic and flat (for example, an NPC whose only distinguishing trait is greed learns their lesson and stops being greedy.)
A note on dynamics: your characters should change from the beginning of the story to the end. This is called a round character; a character that doesn't change is called a flat character.
A character doesn't necessarily have to be dynamic in order to engage the audience. In the story I'm working on right now, for instance, the main character doesn't really change much over the course of the story (although a lot of the other characters change around him,) but as the audience learns more about him, it puts his actions from earlier on into a different context. By the end of the story, he's still largely the same person he was to start with, but at the same time, he's very different from what the audience was led to believe. Note that I'm definitely not saying that plot twists are a substitute for good characterization, but the ultimate goal is to get the audience invested in the characters, and having them change over the course of the story is a means to that end, rather than the end unto itself.
"In his book Aspects of the novel, E. M. Forster defined two basic types of characters, their qualities, functions, and importance for the development of the novel: flat characters and round characters. Flat characters are two-dimensional, in that they are relatively uncomplicated and do not change throughout the course of a work. By contrast, round characters are complex and undergo development, sometimes sufficiently to surprise the reader." From Wikipedia.
Apparently, Wikipedia says "dynamic/static" refers to characters in the way you're differentiating round/flat; dynamic characters have several traits while static characters only have one or two. I didn't know that distinction existed, and it's a confusing one that I don't fault you for mixing up, as the word "dynamic" means something that changes and "static" means "stays the same." What a dumb distinction; I was just saying "dynamic" in a denotative sense.
I would argue that these terms are often synonyms, anyway, as by showing the different characteristics of a character over the course of the story, you're basically rounding them out from the perspective of the player. I get the distinction that's being made, though.
I would also argue that the character you have mentioned is getting rounded out, as their true motivations would have shown the character in a different light, rounding them out in the audience's eyes. I do get what you're saying, and my earlier distinction about the necessity of round characters could have been nuanced by things like audience perception, but I was trying to keep it simple. Good point.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I like explosions.
I'm not trying to be pithy here, I'm really a simple man.
I'm not trying to be pithy here, I'm really a simple man.
Consistent and believable. Believable for me means seeing the events of the plot as plausible for the Thing's (be it game, movie, book, whatever) established reality. It doesn't always mean realism, but I have a personal preference for realistic stories because they're often believable ones if they're accurately realistic.
Uh consistency should be self-explanatory. I do in fact like when a story is coherent and doesn't contradict itself every five minutes.
Not a fan of the Archetypes and the Tropes. Really don't care if characters end up fitting into some kind of archetype/trope/whatever but when characters exist to fill some kind of quota they tend to get the shit-end of the stick when it comes to fleshing them out beyond their Thing.
The more you intentionally rely on Standard Plots and Characters (you could say cliches I guess) the more likely I've seen it countless times before and the more likely I won't have the patience to sit through it again.
Uh consistency should be self-explanatory. I do in fact like when a story is coherent and doesn't contradict itself every five minutes.
Not a fan of the Archetypes and the Tropes. Really don't care if characters end up fitting into some kind of archetype/trope/whatever but when characters exist to fill some kind of quota they tend to get the shit-end of the stick when it comes to fleshing them out beyond their Thing.
The more you intentionally rely on Standard Plots and Characters (you could say cliches I guess) the more likely I've seen it countless times before and the more likely I won't have the patience to sit through it again.
Quasi
148
I like plot, and big plot twists that counter my predicted outcomes. I also like complex stories that take awhile to fully understand, and when you replay it you're like "Ohhh I get it now." I mainly like a story that aren't too fantasy and ignores all logic, unless they come up with some explanation, then it is fine. I also look at character development. I don't really like when the main characters starts overpowered because that will only keep me entertained for the fight major boss. When the next one comes around it starts going downhill for me.
As for endings, I love dark/twisted endings that apparently most people hate. Example, those endings that "seem" like there would be a sequel but there won't be. Or an ending where all the characters you've just developed feelings for, and you think are the best, die or some drastic ending where you're like "NOOO!"
Lol but those are my tastes for endings, and I probably wouldn't recommend those because it would most likely get hated for.
As for endings, I love dark/twisted endings that apparently most people hate. Example, those endings that "seem" like there would be a sequel but there won't be. Or an ending where all the characters you've just developed feelings for, and you think are the best, die or some drastic ending where you're like "NOOO!"
Lol but those are my tastes for endings, and I probably wouldn't recommend those because it would most likely get hated for.
author=LockeZ
I like explosions.
I'm not trying to be pithy here, I'm really a simple man.
sometimes I want a riveting story, mixed with struggle, morally ambiguous characters, love and hate, cruel heroes and sympathetic villains, metaphors and unreliable narrators
sometimes I want explosions
THE SLIDING SCALE OF GOOD STORYTELLING
GOOD ===================================MIDDLEISH ========================= NOT SO GOOD
Mother 3 - Chrono Trigger - Final Fantasy VI - Dragon Quest Series - Final Fantasy IV - Golden Sun - Xenosaga - Illusion of Gaia
GOOD ===================================MIDDLEISH ========================= NOT SO GOOD
Mother 3 - Chrono Trigger - Final Fantasy VI - Dragon Quest Series - Final Fantasy IV - Golden Sun - Xenosaga - Illusion of Gaia
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
It amuses me that Xenosaga had like 70 hours of well voice acted cut scenes with an extremely intricate plot that they obviously spent years just writing, and you put it worse than FF4 which was the equivalent of a 5 minute long preschool storybook with three-sentence-long pages in which you paused for an hour at the end of each page so you could play a video game before turning the page.
I'm not disagreeing, mind you.
I'm not disagreeing, mind you.
Milennin
2060
It needs to have fun or interesting characters. The story could be the cliché save-the-world-from-evil thing, as long as I like the characters in the story I don't really care what it's about. Actually I prefer a story that doesn't require too much thought... for some reason I'm not good with getting stories in my head, so if things get complicated I lose track of what's happening and stop caring at all.
Housekeeping
3571
author=LockeZ
It amuses me that Xenosaga had like 70 hours of well voice acted cut scenes with an extremely intricate plot that they obviously spent years just writing, and you put it worse than FF4 which was the equivalent of a 5 minute long preschool storybook with three-sentence-long pages in which you paused for an hour at the end of each page so you could play a video game before turning the page.
I'm not disagreeing, mind you.
"Shion, we have to save the universe from the Gnosis!"
"Sorry, I'm reading through the in-game encyclopedia that covers the entirety of human history in the game world up until this point."
I only played the first one.
RyaReisender
200
When I continue playing a game because I want to know how the story continues, the story is good. If I continue playing a game just because I like its gameplay, the story is not good.
That's how I usually rate it.
A good story needs to be unique and exciting and evolve in ways you didn't expect at all.
I think most RPGs have really boring stories because they are always similar and predictable if you played many. I like stories in most horror games more (especially Silent Hill and Fatal Frame series).
That's how I usually rate it.
A good story needs to be unique and exciting and evolve in ways you didn't expect at all.
I think most RPGs have really boring stories because they are always similar and predictable if you played many. I like stories in most horror games more (especially Silent Hill and Fatal Frame series).
I really just need the basics to enjoy story. As long as I know what's going on, why its happening and in a way that makes seance I'm happy. As long as the characters aren't idiots, and they don't pull plot resolutions out of their ass.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=Isrieri
THE SLIDING SCALE OF GOOD STORYTELLINGGOOD ===================================MIDDLEISH ========================= NOT SO GOOD
Mother 3 - Chrono Trigger - Final Fantasy VI - Dragon Quest Series - Final Fantasy IV - Golden Sun - Xenosaga - Illusion of Gaia
I like how Illusion of Gaia is on the lowest end of the spectrum. I really didn't like that game, and the stupid vampire boss was the last freaking straw (not to mention the LIMITED HEALING ITEMS that can never be replenished)
I don't like how Golden sun is near the bottom, though (unless you're including the DS game in there). The First GS game was simplistic, but a decent JRPG with a likeable cast, but nothing special plotwise. The Second had another likeable cast, and the plot started out again as nothing special, only to get REALLY good in the last third. The DS game can go do something rude, though. Unlikeable cast, a main mission ("GO GET THIS FEATHER!!!!") for a good 10 hours that isn't motivating at all, despite all the cool stuff I got up to. *Sigh*
Original perspective. More so even than original story.
This is in fact why I developed Tales From The Reaper. I wanted a story that is essentially alien in its outlook, and possibly in gameplay elements. Creatures that have an infinite lifespan, are outside reality (they work behind the scenes of existence), and yet still have an almost human outlook on feelings. Almost (they make a few decisions that are rational yet impossibly cold).
That's what i liked about that lion romanced story. Tell a story from a unique angle, and youve at least got an audience hooked for a few minutes.
This is in fact why I developed Tales From The Reaper. I wanted a story that is essentially alien in its outlook, and possibly in gameplay elements. Creatures that have an infinite lifespan, are outside reality (they work behind the scenes of existence), and yet still have an almost human outlook on feelings. Almost (they make a few decisions that are rational yet impossibly cold).
That's what i liked about that lion romanced story. Tell a story from a unique angle, and youve at least got an audience hooked for a few minutes.
Desertopa
775
That sort of thing is really easy to do badly though. It's easy to get wrapped up in pursuit of uniqueness and lose sight of what you need to make the story entertaining.
