This is me exercising flawed, inductive reasoning, and kowtowing to the Destructoid community:

Everyone appreciates a good story baked into a video game. A lot of people don’t really expect a good story, but no one will say ‘no’ to one either. A lot of that stems from the fact that stories in video games are rather, well, poor. For many developers, gameplay is king, and the story can be a complete throwaway. While I would agree that gameplay trumps all in most cases, I still think that storytelling has huge potential in video games. Video game stories can reach a level where you play for the sake of finding out what happens next. The problem is that too often story is given the back seat, and I think one of the problems is that video game stories are treated as modular, like any other video game asset.

It seems to me like it’s the story that lifts a video game from being good, to being great. A huge number of game franchises have been immortalized by their charismatic characters, unique worlds and lore. Apparently, a Metal Gear Solid game is nothing without Snake. A quick look back at the reaction fans had when Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001) was released is a simple indicator of that. When it turned out that Raiden would be the game’s main character the fan base cried out in anguish because their hero from the prequel would not return as a playable character (or at least not on any significant scale). Say what you will about the Metal Gear Series in terms of story, because they can be easily written off as absolutely awful, but there is obviously great appeal when it comes to the Snake character. People want to get the new game not just to be able to sneak past guards and hide in cardboard boxes, but because they want to play as Snake, and want to learn more about him and his adventures. The same goes for Master Chief, Gordon Freeman, Mario and the Belmont family. In an industry where iteration and revision is constant, where games borrow features and mechanics from each other like mad, the story is what stays true to each franchise. This is something that is rarely exchanged, or replaced. Fans expect more from video game worlds than just the core gameplay experience.

So why are game stories to poor? It’s an absolutely ridiculous question to ask in this little article, of course. Not only are there a huge number of facets to this issue, but there is also an element of subjectivity to the whole thing. I’ll simply touch upon one issue I have with video game development as i perceive it. I believe that the story writer is not given a proper role in the development process, and I will now tell you why.

There is undoubtedly is a huge difference between each development studio, when it comes to the process of making a game, and this is only based on interviews I’ve read, and that sort of thing. Still, a staff of game developers set to create a new game consists many different professions. You have your producers, game designers, programmers, artists, level designers, animators; the list goes on. Also, there’s the writer, or in some cases multiple writers. Each of these individuals start making jigsaw pieces. Programmers write code, artists model and texture characters and props, level designers shape environments, and the writer starts to shape plot and dialog, gluing everything together. The designers envision gameplay where a guy with super-powers, fights aliens in the jungle and space pirates on the moon, using ray guns and hovering tanks. How do you get all of this to make sense? Well, the writer creates a context into which all of this is plausible. Of course, take this with a grain of salt, but still, I consider most games’ stories to largely function as contexts in which certain styles of gameplay can exist harmoniously. The source material that inspired the upcoming game Dante’s Inferno for example, the developers have already admitted has been largely gutted. The story is mostly rewritten because they don’t feel that Dante fits the mold of the beat ‘em up action hero. Instead, they found inspiration in the vibrant description of the nine circles of hell, feeling that they would do well as a basis for nine distinct video game levels, featuring nine sets of enemy characters. Quite clever in a sense, but the rewritten plot-line has yet to prove itself. But i digress, the problem of story development seems to amount when the game starts to go through revisions, not to mention time constraints. I feel a lot of story is lost in this process, which becomes obvious in a few games I will mention later on. A programmer will pull out a piece of code, and re-write it to optimize game performance, an artist might edit a non-player character to have a jacket instead of a shirt, or the level designer might want to add some more rubble to a war-torn city street. Sometimes pieces of a level don’t match with the pacing the developer wants in a certain sequence. Some parts of the game are too tedious, and get cut. With different changes the writer has to edit his script to make any changes fit the story. That’s not to say that this works the other way around too, with the script changing game elements, but like I said earlier: gameplay is king. Also, there is the deadline for shipping a game, which also means that work-arounds have to be made to compensate for content which has been cut. Many a scandal have been made public because of the notorious game development term “crunch time”, when staff pushed to their limit to get everything crammed in before development time runs out.

This becomes obvious in a number of games through the release of redux versions of games hitting retail stores, or in the form of downloadable content. Reaching the climax level of Gears of War (2006), for example, was a strange experience. It is as if the game teleports you to the final level. Any sort of story cohesion gets thrown out the window, and it is obvious that things were cut before the game went gold. This was later verified when the PC release of the game contained a sort of “lost level” which explains how our heroes get to the final battle on the train. This level also features a boss battle with the Brumak creature which you in the console version meet, but never engage. Although convention told me I would have to face the Brumak before the end, after fleeing from it the first time, I would never fight him. In other words, not only does the plot hole of the console version detach you from the story, but the cut also messes with what you might call the game’s suspense curve. The game presents you with increasingly difficult boss fights, continuously upping the stakes, and working towards the climax, but to me, the game skips to the finale prematurely. It lessens the impact of the final battle. The game doesn’t go out with the bang it should have because the final sequence came so unexpectedly.

Another example of this would be the upcoming downloadable content for the console versions of Resident Evil 5 (2009). Resident Evil 5 is another game that is, more often that not, ridiculed for it’s writing. I’m sure a lot of quality is lost during the translation process, but the stories are fairly campy, with poor dialog and cardboard cut-out characters. Looking past this, the biggest issue I had with the game was the Jill character. It was obvious that the game had gone to great lengths to incorporate the character into the story, with her even being the Chris character’s main motivation for pressing forward, against all odds. Throughout a large part of the game Chris is searching for his old partner, Jill. This is what keeps him going; searching through villages, marshlands caves, temples and research facilities. And yet, you never really feel any sort of emotional bond with the Jill character because you never spend any time with her, and I am a firm believer in that the player should feel what the player character is feeling (unless you are purposefully meant to feel the opposite). Only then can a game’s exposition be emotionally resonant. If a game character is angry, then the player should also feel anger. That’s when a game’s story becomes engaging; when the player and avatar have a shared experience. Jill is Chris’ old partner. How can the player share the emotions of the Chris character if Jill has never been the player’s partner? This is where the “lost level” comes in. With the introduction of this DLC a huge piece of the puzzle falls into place. Through cutscenes, the game alludes to Chris and Jill’s earlier mission in the old mansion from the first Resident Evil game. In this DLC the player will play as Chris, exploring the old mansion, with Jill as his partner. The sequence supposedly adds an hour of gameplay. Spending an hour playing alongside the Jill character would undoubtedly make the player much more emotionally attached to her, which makes Chris’ later obsession with finding her that much more understandable and resonant. It also develops Chris’ relationship with the Wesker character. Of course, fans of the game will have a greater understanding of the story in the retail version because these are recurring characters, but as an isolated story the game becomes much richer. One of the game’s big reveals and subsequent boss battle would have been that much more engaging if this content was in the original release. You might roll your eyes over me seeming to take a Resident Evil story so seriously, but I honestly think the game would gave been much more involving if this sequence had been included in the game. My only wish now if for the DLC to be incorporated into the game, sandwiched between the game’s appropriate existing levels. However, I expect the DLC to be similar to the extra missions you find on the PS2 and Wii versions of Resident Evil 4 (2005); as a separate item in the game menu, taken completely out of context. I would be happy if Capcom proved me wrong though. If the DLC is indeed incorporated into the game I would certainly re-play the entire game, from beginning to end, to get a different take on the story.

Not only do these cases stink of a rushed job, but also gives you the feeling that these are cases of double dipping. The extra content for the PC version of Gears of War was platform exclusive, and I am sure a number of people who already owned the Xbox 360 version ended up buying the PC version for the additional content. In the case of Resident Evil 5 it would be the other way around, with only the consoles receiving the DLC treatment. As an owner of the console copy, I get the feeling I will be paying extra for content that should have been a part of the initial retail package.

A good example of a game where story and gameplay has effectively been married is BioShock (2007). A case where the script writer is also the lead designer, which makes a lot of sense, because this is a case where both story and gameplay is ultimately developed by the same individual. It helps make the two aspects more unified which, in my opinion, makes for a better gaming experience altogether. In any case, I suppose what I’m trying to get across that I feel too many video game stories are getting the cut-and-paste treatment, when a story is a carefully planned out chain of cause and effect, that have highs and lows in terms of suspense, information is divulged systematically, and characters have motive. A story is carefully constructed. When you start hacking at it important things get left out, and gamers lose.