Importance of plot in games.

I read somewhere that gamers don't remember plot details when asked to recall them after playing games. They remember characters, weapons, enemies even lines of dialogue and music.

But not plot.

Given this, it doesn't surprise me that many big games these days have no real plot.

Is there any point in establishing and telling a well designed plot, then?

 

I can't think of any gamers I know that fit into that category, and I know a lot of gamers.

If their pool of gamers was COD enthusiasts then sure, I can see that they wouldn't be interested. However, games that are built with compelling stories, lore and plot are memorable to all those that are interested in playing them and who do actually play them so I think this is more of a question of improving market appeal to subjectively disinterested demographics. Once you reach a high enough level of quality and gameplay appeal then you'll overflow into appealing to more demographics than story enthusiasts so it's kind of relative to your game's potential to spread across multiple genres of appeal.

 

[Citation needed]

 

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...me_narrative_is_all_about_your_characters.php

 

Yeah, I saw that talk. It's kinda not... super great because, much like rigid ludologists, people who make sweeping statements about games writing like that tend to sweep a lot of things that a well crafted narrative can bring to the table under the rug. It reminds me of Persona 4, actually. I find the plot to that game absolutely dreadfully boring, but it has a huge focus on character interactions and characters in general. Because of that, I can't actually remember a thing about the plot. Not because there is something inherently wrong with the notion of a well constructed narrative, but because the game had a poorly constructed one.

Really, that's my problem with a lot of games. The narrative decisions in regards to plot often just facilitate the moving forward of the game, rather than to engage with the player. Really, you should strive for a balance in each area depending on the needs of your game, but games honestly (especially lately) tend to lean far too hard into either ludology or characters, but not plot.

 

I'm one.

Many of the games I play have no plot at all (Beat Saber, QuiVr, KSP, Bloons TD, etc.). Thinking back to the plot-driven games I've most enjoyed — Oblivion, Spider-Man 2, and Tron Evolution — I fit the OP's description exactly.

Here's my summary of Oblivion's plot: a dragon appears, much carnage happens, you get away, have a bunch of adventures, and eventually Patrick Stewart appears and says some kind words.

Spider-Man 2: Lots of crime in Manhattan, including Dock Ock (whom I assume you eventually defeat, though I don't actually remember how that goes down).

Tron Evolution: tons of fantastic acrobatic combat and wall-jumping as you, uh, pursue some goal that involves some sort of virus guy.

To be clear, I loved all of these games and played each one through more than once (which is really rare for me). But yeah, a few years later, I don't remember much of anything about the plot. At the time, I'm sure I was into the story to varying extent (I remember being particularly intrigued by Tron's). But years later, what I remember is the action, not the plot.

Maybe. Remember, at the time I was engaged by the plot, and that's what really matters. Whether people can remember your plot years later doesn't really matter much. And then of course there are gamers (like the other posters in this thread) who actually do care about the plot.

So I think there's a point to it, if that's the kind of game you're making. Just don't expect all your carefully crafted plot details to make a lasting impression.

 

So to make a business analogy, investing in plot has a bad ROI.

 

Some games have plots, others simply have goals. Some players like elaborate plots, others do not. Most of us enjoy both at different times. Usually when someone posts something like...do games need plots...I am assuming they do not want to create a plot so looking for someone to confirm that what they want to do is okay.

Make your game how you want it and if it is good, plot or no plot, there will be a player base for it. It might not be the plot-oriented players, but there are still plenty out there who will not care.

 

A) most plots are unmemorable. B) few games make the plot integral to gameplay.

For the first one, that's not an issue exclusive to games. If I asked what the plot of Ghostbusters was, the main responses would capture the gist of the conflicts (starting a business, fighting off the paranormal shenanigans) while dropping the finer points (like the antagonistic EPA dude). People boil plot down to the main thrust ex post facto, ergo people tend to remember plots that are simpler and more straightforward. This is why people remember FF7's plot of fighting Sephiroth, but are going to be way the F*** murkier about FF8's 'fight the sorceress... a few times because love' plot. It's way easier to remember scenes, than to parse the story as a whole. Add on to that the sheer amount of time games take, and you're bound to have people who've already lost most of the plot by the time they finish the game.

As for the second, most games only use play to push the plot. Get to a point and push a button is about all that most games really require that the player think about. Narrative is largely there as set dressing, and is largely extraneous. It's like being served a meal on multiple plates. While they are intended to go together, you can choose one or the other and it won't matter. There is rarely consideration that the two are intrinsically tied together.

 

This is a really good point. Especially for players like me — if I'm into a game, I'll play it maybe a couple hours a week, because that's literally all the time I can spare. At that pace it may be months between plot points A and B, and by the time I get to B I'll have already forgotten A. This has caused me grief (loss of fun) on some occasions, where remembering or understanding the plot was kinda important.

So, if you do make a plot-driven game, please keep it as simple you can, and don't expect players to remember the details. Or, make sure you have something like a log, that lets them refresh their memory on what's going on when they've forgotten.

 

Just because you can't remember the plot doesn't mean it wasn't important to the experience at the time.

 

I can't remember what I ate for dinner last night.

So what?

Just started replaying a favorite from my teenager days : Shenmue. I don't remember jack about the plot except it's about revenge, yet I remember that I loved the game immensely, and now I get to enjoy it all over again.

If the game is centered around a story, tell a good one. If it's not, don't bother. Simple. Same as anything else.

In modeling, you don't want any vertices that aren't defining the silhouette. It's just efficiency. If something isn't pulling its weight, remove it. Same thing with game design. Is a story crucial to the game experience you want to deliver? If not, remove it. If it is, do it right.

 

Of course. I'd personally argue that games are better suited for focusing on game mechanics and characters, but I think that's more a reflection of my personal tastes. If you have a solid story idea that you think will be memorable, there's definitely an audience for it.

I do think it's a little more difficult to get a strong story across in a game. Doesn't make it impossible.

 

We also have to keep in mind that most players only complete 15% of a game. It would seem the camp you're describing account for the minority of overall gamers, but the majority of your friends. Which doesn't tell me much about gamers in general but a lot about you and your friends. That said, I would probably not try to make a game to cater to the extreme minority of highly opinionated die-hard gamers, the reasoning for this being two fold. One, there's not a lot of you guys to begin with. Two, all of you are paying upwards of $60 a title for games with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If there were more of you, games would probably be a little less expensive, when you think about it. Movies cost a lot less than games, even though they cost just as much to produce and market. I digress. If you drill down deep enough into the fringes you'll always find some marginalized individual that is the exception to the rules, but in this case it's clear. Most people don't care about a game's plot, they never even get past the first act.

 

Why do we have to keep that in mind? Source? How could this possibly be tested?

 

Riot has the most successful product in the gaming world. Perhaps ever.

It's not just a sweeping generalization, but a sweeping generalization gathered from real player experiences. Actual user stories from real products.

I agree with the ludologist statements in general, that they tend to discount things that are not specifically ludology, but I can't discount the veracity of their analysis. Ultimately, I would rather have a dedicated game designer direct the pacing of the game than a story writer.

I'm guilty myself of not remembering plot details. I just play games one portion at a time, trying to figure out what to do next. If I don't get bored within fifteen minutes, that's a good game. If I play for hours without meaning to, that's a great game. It's that simple.

Maybe you would enjoy reading some novels. Those are heavy on character development and plot. Games are always going to be games. We go through this ebb and flow where game developers think they are film makers for a bit, but the best games are games first and storytelling mediums second or even third.

 

I see. I am burdened with knowledge. And you wish to share that burden. Steam data shows players only complete about 15% of a game then move on, but still rate it highly if they enjoyed it. It was quite a revelation. It means as a designer, the first 15% of your game earns you good reviews, the rest is basically just for your dedicated players and the last tidbits are only for completionists. In other words, 80% of your games public reaction comes from 20% of your game.

 

Anything is possible, doesn't make it a good idea.

 

The times I remember being interested in games was when I had this impression that there was an important plot going on, but I had no idea of the details. The characters were all excited about something or another. Voice acting compelled me to care. I was convinced the plot had to be epic, or something. When watching games played by others, though, I note that they are often contrived and characters are just devices for pushing the player toward the cheese at the end of the maze.

That bit about Patrick Stewart was hilarious and out of nowhere.

 

Actually, I am on my 4th iteration of the opening scenario. Each time I keep getting stuck on a different impediment. Not because my story isn't working, but because the events don't end up presenting the character with a proper motive to pick up a weapon and fight the bad guys. Often, the best option for the character is to cut and run, save his own skin, or negotiate with the enemy. Its very difficult to craft a believable action scenario where all character motives are scrutinized. People generally don't pick up guns and re-enact Die Hard.

I had the thought leap into my brain, I am doing it backwards. If I keep trying to find a way that my characters will naturally carry out the required series of actions the game demands, it will either never work or take many months to navigate.

I realized that few games do this, if any. Even many novels and films have characters do unrealistic things, and they lampshade it by saying "I know I should have a gun and call 911 but I have to defeat the villain bare handed without calling cops or using a gun because my parents were killed with a gun and I loathe them, and the cops will accuse me of the murder!" It's not what a person would really do. But it's what the story demands. In games, it's about what the game demands.

Plot is really little more than caulking to fill in and smooth the gaps, sometimes, especially when it comes to action.

 

I think these are the strongest takeaways.

 

I love this talk by Ken Levine in which he discusses the idea of a systematic narrative that unfolds in a dynamic way. In this, the story is not quite pre-defined. Plot however could most likely remain in place for key points. The main advantage here is the replayability factor. Try to remember something that is different on each playthrough.

 

There are some game plots I remember fully from start to finish, and others I can't recall at all.
If I can't remember it, I most likely just didn't find it interesting.

 

My conclusion is, for now, that plot is important while you are playing a game but it is not important when you are done playing the game, from a ludoligical perspective. This will determine if your game is enjoyable to play. Thus, it is in a developers best interest to maintain a simple, basic plot that way it can most closely match the needs of the game it serves.

However, for a game to be memorable, for it to leave any impression on the player, and for the developer to have any legacy, whatever plot there is, whether there is little or much, must be enthralling and entertaining. This is not to say it must be grand or great, it just has to be very good. Good will not cut it.

If you wish to be humorous, you must be very funny. If you wish to be avante garde, then you must be muy nuevo. Whatever you're trying to communicate in your plot, it has to come through loud and clear.

I'm going to have to focus more energy on the plot than I initially expected to, but it should pay out on the back end by allowing the game to not feel cheap and disposable. Which in turn will make me, the developer, have a reputation of making things that are not cheap and disposable.

Trouble is I have exhausted the autodidactic faculties of the internet and I'm still only a mediocre plot writer. What gives?
@Teila where do I go from here?

 

I think you have some good points and I think it's really admirable that you strives for a high standard of plot in your game(s). If you feel like you have gotten all the knowledge there is from the internet and other sources, then I would say that the best way to get better is to practice.
If you decide to work on your plot-writing skills and need someone to proof-read or bounce off ideas, let me know and I'd gladly help you with that. Regardless, I'm intrigued to see what you come up with. Your enthusiasm is truly inspiring.

 

I think the point is missed sometimes on this forum. Maybe because we are all developers or maybe because many are also gamers. We tend to look at things from that perspective.

However, some games rely heavily on plot and some of these are very successful. Many people play these games for the story, the plot. Examples include many adventure games, which are now having a sort of Renaissance. If you are making a story driven game, you must have some sort of plot. It could be a branching plot, or one that winds in and out of the game play, or one that is goal oriented and the plot is determined by whether the player reaches the goals.

On the other hand, many of those games you guys play probably would not benefit from a plot, such as the fps games. Multiplayer games often have plots created through emergent game play among the players. Simulation games often have a rough goal and nothing more.

So this whole..should it have a plot or no? It depends 100% on what kind of game you are making. I cannot imagine a game like Gone Home or Journey without a plot. From my browsing the forums over the last several years, I think story driven games are not as common among indie developers. They focus on mechanics, which is fine because many of them are solo or small team programmers and there is a player base for these games.

My own experience moving from writing game lore to game plots has been interesting. I figured it would be easy, but incorporating a story/plot (as a plot is the main story) has been rather difficult. I read several books on the subject first which helped although in some ways it made the task more overwhelming! Writing a narrative is easy for me, but when it came to writing for a game, I realized that I had to give the player more control, which for a writer is scary. I still plan to finish someday but it will be a challenge. Fortunately, I like challenges.

 

I don't know or remember much about plot in games either. Game lore generally doesn't interest me very much, unless it's a broad-scale historical account or something like that - and certainly not while actually playing the game. There's nothing more boring for me than the excessive and irrelevant detail posted in the lore section of the Star Citizen updates for example.

What I am looking for when I play a game is for the game world to communicate meaning to me that fits with what I am doing. I have a basic idea of why I am there, of course, and that's usually enough in terms of the background plot, but what I really want is the world to continuously speak to me, to reflect the things that I have done and to give me the motivation to continue doing things, and to signal to me the feedback that I will get when I do certain things.

Interestingly, I think Star Citizen totally fails to do this as well. Too much text and not enough gameplay, if we're talking about plot. That's why it all looks boring to me, but maybe that's just my opinion.

That's why I really like a good NPC, because a character is an excellent way to do what I just described. They provide not just a way to communicate directly to the player, but also a lot of indirect feedback based on your relationship with them. And this is augmented by their being human (or similar in some way to a human) and therefore containing inherent meaning and being an 'anchor of meaning' of sorts.

In a slightly different way, but on the same note, I really like the Homeworld 2 cutscenes, because to me they manage to communicate a sense of purpose while providing an extremely limited amount of detail. This is the sort of cinematic that I like to be confronted with in a game, not some 10-minutes of unskippable soap opera style dialogue between some characters trying to sound all gung-ho and giving me way too much information that I don't care about.

I think that perhaps they could have done even better by transferring the visual part of those cutscenes to the game world itself, but well they had to deal with 2002 hardware.

So to sum up, I want a broad-scale narrative, and a game world that talks to me. For most kinds of games, anything beyond that belongs in some accompanying novel. And if you're going to write a book, do it like a James Michener novel.

 

Now, I'm not sure about gamers "forgetting" plot. Where did you hear this from? I haven't heard about it.

Regardless, we need to ask why people forget a plot. Is it because the plot is boring, or too long or complicated, or insignificant? Maybe there's nothing wrong with the plot, and people simply aren't paying attention.

"Does story matter for games?" This in an age old question... There is no objective answer, because the question is opinion based.

So you asked "Is there any point in establishing and telling a well designed plot, then? Personally, I think: although not entirely required, it definitely can help make a game more interesting. If there's no plot, there's no point. But consequently, a bad story can also do great harm to a game. There are seriously games out there where the main thing people complained about was the story. (Often a "sequel game.")

However, I also don't consider games like Doom or Super Mario to be "plot-less." There totally is plot driving actions in those games. It's just that said plots are very simple and straight forward.

So my answer is: Yes. You'd do well to add a well designed plot. But it doesn't have to be complex. I feel these days, too many writers are relying on plot-twists, and complicated lore, as an attempt to make a story more interesting. When there's nothing wrong with a story being simple or predictable.

While we're on the topic of story writing, I'd like to share a tip: There's one simple guide line I always follow when writing game stories: "Significant events must be relevant, and consistent to the gameplay in some way!"

That might sound obvious, but I find it amazing how many game stories don't fit this description. I'll give you an example of something very frequent, that I'm sick and tired of: The sheer number of games, that will have your character hold up his (or her) hands and surrender to one or two henchmen in a cutscene, even though during gameplay you gun down the exact same henchmen by the dozen without any trouble! This story cliche is contradictory, and I personally just can't take it seriously.

And that's a pain, too. Cause I understand if it's a game like COD for example, you're trying to write a fictional story taking place amidst real life events. So actually acknowledging your characters ability to withstand bullets wouldn't fit the realistic setting. It might seem out of place. (Just like the gameplay, I guess.)

That reminds me. A lot of you should already know this, but "realism" and "immersion" are not the same thing at all. (Although they can be connected.)

 

Thing about plot is that it very much depends on the game being made. If the game is not meant to be plot driven then a plot can be detrimental to it. A game like Mario for instance, people play it for the platforming, not because they actually want to save princesses.

 

You are making assumptions about why people play a game. Some people may play it for the platforming. Some may play it for the plot. By making an assumption and taking out the plot, you cut your player base in half.

 

The way I see it is when a dev caters to a specific type of player base, they now have some control of what that player base will be. They may be able to effectively rule out that half of them will care about story because they can focus on gathering more gameplay driven fans instead. This can be done using an assumption based on their knowledge of how different genres operate, and what kind of player chooses those genres. Most FPS games are not played for their character driven stories, for example. Most RPGs are not played for gameplay that tests skilled reflexes.

Of course this is just something to keep in mind, it's not an extremely rigid rule. The most successful games out there combined good gameplay and story (fHalf Life, Portal 2, Ori and the Blind Forest), but given to most indie devs it's a trade off, that's not always within our means to pull off. And those games out there that did successfully combine the two, they were still typically stronger in one versus the other.

 

True, but you also might lose the folks who want story AND game play...which I suspect is a large chunk based on the games that are successful these days. It is always the choice of the developer though.

 

Ironicly Mario would be worse without the little plot it has. Saving the princess gives people a tangiable goal, gives context for the castles as a boss stage and the increaseing number of toads shows that the "story" is progressing.

Even in a mechanicly focused game some small amount of plot helps getting players in the right mindset since just "finishing" the game doesn´t seem to appeal to as many people. Inherintly having plot implies that something will still happen in the game so people won´t just drop off early when they may get bored or frustrated at any stage.

 

Oh yeah definitely agree with this. But my point was that it is not really trying to be a "story" more than it is a justification for why you're doing anything at all in the game (something most games have). It can be a detriment in some cases, for instance in Mario Sunshine where they added a bit more story, it was considered to be pretty bad by most standards (I certainly found it hard to sit through).

A couple of days back I was discussing FPS games with a guy saying it's been a while since I played a good one. He suggested a recent Doom game stating it was the only FPS he ever played through. I then suggested the Half Life series as must plays for the genre. He stated that he doesn't care for them because he's not a "story type guy".

Thing about that conversation is, HL games have amazing gameplay, he's missing out because he doesn't want the story. At the same time though, HL games do force you to sit through some story and conversations. That was enough to turn off at least that gamer from the game, and such gamers do exist. So depending on the target audience, you may not always want to invest time in a story, or on the flipside, you may not need to invest much time on mechanics when you have such a strong story you know will hook players.

 

Hmm, problem is most gamers want mechanics or they want mechanics and story. Hardly anyone wants just story. So if you do not want to bother with a plot, then you better have great mechanics if you want to sell the game. Of course, you could have story and mechanics and have a larger target audience.

Story is hard...I think that is why so many want to leave it out.

 

Thing is there is an audience for that if you want to target it, and many an indie has been successful doing so. Point and click adventure games, some horror games or very heavy story driven games like "What Remains of Edith Finch" rely almost solely on story/atmosphere. They do have gameplay for sure, but it's not complex and can probably be programmed rather easily (on the flip side they are heavy on art, and that is where the difficulty of their creation would likely be). If you took a game like that and added gameplay segments that requires a decent amount of skill (something a hardcore gamer would probably have), you could pull it off maybe, but it can also be risky in that a player coming for story doesn't want to bother with platforming or FPS segments in their gameplay experience.

It's a trade off, not saying there is one right answer but that it is a place where compromising one for the other can actually prove to be not only easier on the developer but also better on the business side.

 

*looks at vast collection of visual novels, many of them kinetic*

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....................................

 

I did not include visual novels and as far as I can see, neither did others. While it is great to point out a very good story driven genre, not sure the Uhhhhh is very respectful or constructive.

 

You really didn't specify that they were excluded either. The simple fact of it is that there exists a market full of people who play games where the "gameplay" is minimal.

 

Could be true. I have dropped games with plots because they put in combat elements that require a great deal of weird button smashing. Usually they are sequels to games I loved that now have been changed to have less story and more combat. Some of those games have not been well received by anyone.

But....plenty of good combat oriented games have stories. My daughter can name dozens of them because she loves those games.

So your target audience or audiences are your choice. My daughter will not play a game without a story even if it is combat oriented. I will not play a game with button mashing (I have carpal tunnel syndrome). You can choose which group of players you want to target.

However....the fact that leaving out the story is easier is not always a good reason. There are plenty of other indie developers who will find a way to include a story. Those games may capture a bigger part of an already saturated market.

Before you decide, do some research, read some books on writing a narrative on games. Maybe it is not so hard.

No one is telling anyone how to make their game, especially me. I love to see unique game ideas developed by passionate indies. But do not shut the door on anything. Read, study, watch videos, learn.

 

Since the OP discussed the games he wanted to make, I was staying on subject. Thank you for your concern.