Talking to Zloc, I decided that even the best games have absolutely two dimensional characters. Of the colorful, multidimensional video game characters I can think of, almost all of them are old Lucasarts properties. The only modern games that have anything even resembling a compelling and realistic plot are the Call of Cthulu game, and the latest Star Wars Game, and those aren't very original anyway.

Any of the gaming experiences that seem to have a good story wouldn't hold up in a film or a book. I would put down Metal Gear Solid pretty quickly. The Legend Of Zelda series would only be a children's program. Final Fantasy games would be bad Anime. Gears of War would be a The Rock movies. Fallout would be a really bad post-apoc flic, and oblivion would be a sci-fi made for TV film.

The only games I can think of that might come close to quality literature/film are with humorous characters like Guybrush Threepwood, and arguably the generals in CoD games, but I'm not the only one who thinks CoD storylines are predictable.

Can any of you think of games with story lines that are actually moving and compelling enough to make you laugh or care about the characters beyond projecting? I mean, I enjoyed FF8 because I painted my own ideas onto the canvas that the developers left me, not because the game had any kind of a good storyline. I know a lot of games try to do that so individuals identify with their character and it's all about immersion and emergent narrative, but I think we can move people with requiring they make all of the characters themselves, but we haven't. Unless you guys can think of a game I haven't?

World of Goo: The Sign Painter

HL2 has a very good story, but isn't really character driven I suppose. It really excels at putting you in the boots of the protagonist, which isn't exactly what you're looking for.

Mass Effect had a good story, but the characters did suck.

Fallout 3.

I made a whole thread about how bad Fallout 3's story was. They ruined what could have been one of my favorite games ever.

I'd say Bioshock actually did an okay job, but I think the tape playing mechanic is a pretty easy way to inject storyline, but it's still more successful than the others. I still haven't gotten very far in system shock or deus ex, but I'm sure they fit my requirements if I could just sit still through them. I still don't have an excuse, I just can't play them.

I think HL2 does an okay job, but the characters are horrible. No one talks like that, and there's long awkward pauses for no reason. Episode 2's dialogue finally started to feel good, but I still don't play the game for the characters at all. It's for the EXPERIENCE of being there, not the story. I'm specifically talking about storylines that don't capitalize on immersion, but instead on story telling (not to say that the gameplay would have to be sacrificed, I really don't think they'd be related).

Assassin's Creed had an interesting storyline going...

I wonder how a silent protagonist would work in a film... (thinking Chrono Trigger)

Plots and characters should supplement a gaming experience, not suffocate it...

If you want a plot to be on par with a book or movie, I'm pretty sure it's best to just read books or watch movies. I mean, you seriously don't want to play System Shock or Deus Ex because of the story?

Yes, old LucasArts titles had great dialog, stories and characters. But those games were also point-and-click titles. You sacrificed player involvement to such great amounts to achieve such a untouched presentation of plot and writing, and that's why the genre died.

What awkward pauses?

HL2, Fallout 3(I love my Dog I keep him in my house), Farcry 2 (tried so hard to keep my allies alive)

FF6 had the best character-driven plot of any FF I think, but it definitely wasn't "real" or "sophisticated" the way you're describing you if I'm understanding you. It tells a great story, all of the characters have complex personalities, backgrounds, problems, ambitions etc. but it was still very "epic" (exaggerated? glorified? hyperbolized?) in the way of the Illiad or the Odyssey, as opposed to "real" like The Things They Carried or Gatsby. That doesn't make it any less compelling with an amazing story with amazing characters (especially because the medium of expression was 2D sprites!), but it's not "realistic".

I mean, JRPGs in general are just interactive books/movies. Which I personally like as opposed to "real" role-playing games in which you actually play a role. I think games are a very good and legitimate medium for telling a story, and to let you take part in it is all the better.

GTA4 has awesome characters

I think it's silly to argue that a good storyline would ruin a videogame. I don't think it's the presentation that made adventure game stories successful: Dr. Breen could make a little more sense than generic supervillain. My Fallout 3 father could act like something other than an archetype. Lara Croft could be more personable than one line quips and generic action movie one liners. It would take little to no effort to improve the storylines in videogames. Take the scene you were going to make, hand it to a half-decent writer, and he'll return dialogue that doesn't sound like SF_Gold wrote it.

And yeah, GTA is probably one of the only videogames that cares about story, but I can only play gangster films so many times. I want a swords and shields RPG that doesn't feel like bad fanfic. I'd like to play a FPS where the other guys in my squad have real human emotions other than "LETS KILL SOME BUGS!"

Seconded. I do that too.

Doom 3 has a great story.

When that dog died while i was out scavving (I was playing on a strict "Whatever happens, happens ruleset for myself) I cried man...I cried.

Omikron: The Nomad Soul, had a pretty cool story.

Mafia

Journeyman Project II.

<.<
>.>

WHAT!? I loved that game.

But seriously, most FUN games are fun because resources are thrown at gameplay and not story. Yes, you can have both, but both must suffer at the expense of each other given that resources are finite. Any fun game that has great story could have been made MORE fun at the expense of storyline...

Actually that last argument assumes that the two are separate and independent when they're nothing of the sort. But still the resourse thing is true.

Agreed. Hell look at Zelda. Evil thief, kill the monsters, save the princess, blahblahblah... still pretty much one of the greatest game series ever made.

I think S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would make a great book.

Planescape:Torment
Baldur's Gate 2
FF8
FF6
FF5

I think that depends more on which Legend of Zelda game you choose to be a film. Wind Waker would definately be a kiddies film. A Link to the Past could probably pass as a more mature film.

In that case I challenge you to create a good storyline for Tetris.

Tetris has an awesome storyline. All the clones throw it away, though.

I understand where you're coming from Kirbs, but I think your failure to see what you're looking for is more a lack of willingness to compromise. Video games have different rules and different requirenments for plot than movies, in the same way that movies have different rules and different requirements from books. I agree that there's probably very few video games that could be ported straight to movie to become an enjoyable cinema experience, but I also believe that if an intelligent person sat down and took a serious, legitimate look at certain video game titles, they could very likely recreate them into good cinema with some, shall we say adjustments, while still maintaining the essence of the game. Sadly, I can think of no examples of where this has actually been done, but then I'm not much of a video game player.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you, Kirby, are very picky and very hard to please when it comes to any form of media entertainment. You are the type of person who doesn't compromise when it comes to storyline, and for you an entire good film or game can be ruined because of one bad concept. This is compounded by your level of intelligence and observation, in that writers cannot "sneak stuff by you," like they can with most of the rest of America. Ask yourself, if a film came out and 85% of the people that saw it thought it was a good film, maybe not incredible, but worth the $8 to go see, but you and a few other film critic entrepreneurs found the film predictable and boring, with unbelievable dialogue, has the film succeeded? You probably wouldn't think so, but it was liked by the vast stupid majority, and the bottom line is, you can't please everybody.

I cried during Lost Odyssey and I'm not afraid to admit that.
That's one of the very, very few games that has been able to get that kind of emotional reaction from me though.
I did find myself getting fairly involved with some of the characters in Saints Row 2 though.

I'm not saying a storyline would ruin a game. But you are putting plot to such high expectations to the point that you will always be disappointed with whatever that comes out. I say a story should just help a game's sense of player immersion and nothing really more. Since often the user is present within the context of whatever situation at hand in the game's world, interaction with NPCs will always be limited to a degree because these characters are often attempting to relate to you. Thus, you is anybody. If the player's character is taken away from the user in order to advance the plot and dialog, then this will conflict with the immersion factor due to the feeling of being chained to a script.

"Player immersion" is something that is alien to movies and books. Often the reader is watching whatever unfold as some sort of omnipresent yet always silent observer. Ever read a book in the second person? It's an awkward experience.

I pretty much tried to post what Sarn said in this first paragraph at 5am this morning when I got in from work but wasn't lucid enough. The example I was going to use for video games to film was actually Metal Gear Solid. If you imagine the film to be a linear progression through the game storyline (i.e. boss fights in order, etc.) then it'd be about as enjoyable as watching someone else play through the game without any say in the direction of play. The concept and story itself is a strong basis for a film.

I disagree with labelling people who enjoy the kind of film described in the second paragraph as "stupid". It's just as easy to turn it around and call the likes of JediKirby elitists in that regard and make them the "bad guys" of the entertainment industry.

Baldur's Gate 2 got me that way and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Aerie was one of the first characters to elicit that kind of emotional response from me, I always felt very protective of her. The ending of MGS3 also got more than a few tears. The music and the scene at the cemetary was incredible.

KotOR 1.

The whole thing with Bastila.

That was the most involvement I ever experienced in any sort of game / RPG.

And yeah, Baldur's Gate II.

I guess videogames don't suck because of that, and it's my fault for titling the thread that way, but I do think video game stories are a joke. I love the Legend of Zelda series, but when people protest how much they "love" link, I can't understand their emotional attachment to him. I don't know why people "prefer" Mario. He isn't a person, he's an icon. A symbol. He's whatever you want him to be, and I understand that's why they're successful, I guess I just wish they didn't try to half-*** a story while trying to pass their world off as real. I would be immersed in their crisp graphics and responsive world if people didn't talk in famous quotes and parody.

Seriously, Mafia

The Call of Cthulhu game had a pretty sweet story and main character that wasn't totally one-sided.

Mario: People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Mario, as a man I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored I can be destroyed, but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.
Luigi: What symbol?
Mario: A Plumber.

The problem with video games are people. By which I mean both the people who make them and the people who play them. You can plot them on three axes:

1.) The "story" group. At the extreme end these people are so busy masturbating over what they imagine to be the storytelling possibilities of the medium that they fail to understand the point of the medium in the first place. This is basically anybody who posts on Gamedev.net with a "brilliant" idea and is looking for someone to do all of the work for him.

Here's the greatest stupidity of this group of people: the unskippable cutscene. They think their storyline is so important to the game that they're willing to stop the game entirely so they can force the player to experience it. The notion of an unskippable cutscene is intensely arrogant and directly antithetical to the purpose of a video game in the first place.

The iconic representation of a game made by people who take "story" too seriously would be any Nomura Final Fantasy game.

2.) The "Games Are Art" group, divided into two sub-categories:

a. "Visual:" These are people who obsessed with 'look and feel'. Here's a good litmus test: ask them what they think about Metroid, and they'll probably answer "It was good, it felt like you were really alone on an alien planet."

b. "Design:" Obsessed with gameplay to the exclusion of anything else. These are the people who still play Street Fighter 2 or think the Wii is a killer game console. Litmus test: They hate JRPGs.

Ever play a game and think "You know, this sounds really good on paper but it doesn't really work in real life?" If so, then you've played a game made by someone who emphasizes the art and design above everything else. An obsession with artwork and design leads you to trainwrecks like Daikatana and Super Mario Sunshine, or Shadow of the Colossus (which is hard to hate, because they did the design and artwork really really well even though it wasn't fun to play at all).

3.) The "Technophile" Group. Anybody who places an emphasis on graphics at the expense of everything else is in here. That would include companies like Crytek, Epic and id, but technology is their bread and butter so I don't hold it against them. I do, however, hold it against anybody who bought their games just for benchmarking.


So you have 'good' games which everybody seems to enjoy and also coincidentally balance all of the factors necessary to create a game: like the original Half-Life, or Halo, or Morrowind, or Super Mario Galaxy. Then you have the 'bad' or polarizing games which place way too much emphasis on a single goal: like Quake 3, or Final Fantasy 7, or Fable.

With my first post in mind, I would like to contribute the following to the discussion:

It doesn't matter if a game has a good story or a bad story, it matters how the story is told. And you know, if you spend enough time deconstructing any story that you enjoy you'll end up with something that sounds infantile too, so I think it's pointless trying to look at the story of a game as something that's designed to stand on its own. If you can read the game's script and write an accurate novelization without even playing the game - it's a bad game.

Actually, I liked Deus Ex's story...it was basically a crazy blend of wacko conspiracy theories, and they kept piling them on, like "the government spies on you. Also there are men in black. And Illuminati. And Roswell aliens." I guess I agree with Jon, the storyline was pretty out there but the way they told it worked really well.

Flatlander Women is one of the most vivid memories i have from any game.

I have a feeling you may already know this, but STALKER is made from a movie (called STALKER) inspired by a book called "Roadside Picnic", which was great. It shares a great deal of elements (and anomalies, heh), so you might wanna give it a go through.

I really enjoyed the lost memories aspect of Lost Odyssey, every one of those was fascinating and very emotional.

From what I remember, Indigo Prophecy had a great story.