This seems pretty narrowly focused on FPS and the methods they employ for storytelling. I'm having a hard time tying his statements to the type of storytelling and gameplay present in an RPG like Planescape: Torment for example. Which is one of those games I believe qualifies as art, precisely because of it's storytelling.

He's right. However, 90% of the sh*t they try to pass off as a story in the gaming industry is, well, sh*t. So it's easy to see how gamers have developed a stone wall to any sort of deep literary connection. However, I say usher in the new era of storytelling Ken, for the few of us that do appreciate a good tale in our games, we tip our hats to you.

Frankly, the only reason I can think of that will keep people from being interested in a good story is it being told in a way that removes the player from his favored kinds of interaction for the time of narrative exposition. If you create a FPS and force the players to sit still and do nothing while you tell your story, they will justifiedly feel and react as though you just wanked off in their faces.

There are two solutions: Either, you cut your story to the bone so it can be told at the fringes of a constant violence spree, or you try to introduce more verastile engaging ways of gameplay that give you more opportunities to transport story during the actual player interaction. The question shouldn't be how to save as much story as possible from the cutter, it should be how to present the whole of the story in an immersive way integral to the gameplay experience.

id made this claim very strongly, once upon a time. It was in that same timeframe that their sales went into real decline.

I think a lot of the reason Halo has done so well is the strong story.

No, but great minds think alike.

Ken make's some good points. However i'm playing through Bioshock right now and his environment as story philosophy doesn't really seem to gel with me. There have been several times where i've killed key people and not realized they were key people until after they were dead and the text popped up telling me i'd finished a quest. I think Bioshock could use a few more HalfLife-esque cutscenes to flesh out the characters and story. The audio dialogue just isn't cutting it for me and frankly never has.

Seconded.

Maybe if I didn't pay attention, I would've got it more. When I tried to follow it, all I got was a bunch of abstract nonsense that didn't tie together in any meaningful way and which at least to me, seemed to have the depth of a Michael Bay film. My opinion of Halo games is pretty much what Yahtzee's is but obviously I'm in the minority.

I don't think it's true that you have to go outside the games to understand the story, but I do agree that it is unlikely for someone to follow it completely in one go. It's distributed too evenly across cutscenes, controllable action sequences, Cortana talking into your head, and other background noise. Also, it's a huge mistake to lump the qualities of the stories of the three games together. They vary wildly.

...

notbillharris

I thought Halo's story was good, and not really that hard to follow. It got annoying during the Library, but that was more due to the level design at that time. I'm not sure where the hate on Halo's story comes from. I never read any of the books.

I thought Halo 2's story felt more phoned in, but it still was not bad.

That reminds me, I really need to sit down and play through Halo 3.

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." - John Carmack

I enjoyed the storyline in Halo 2 as much or more than Halo 1. Halo 3 felt a bit sterile.

Story for me, is a key ingredient that raises a game above its mechanics into an experience that can draw me in. When the story or setting doesnt gel, I tend to lose interest. It's like I see the game as a naked set of programmed functions and code without that layer of storyline to clothe it. When I was a younger gamer, even Doom's simple enough background (1 page in the manual!) was enough for me, which makes me laugh in hindsight. But it was an evolutionary period in gaming. I'd never experienced a first person game that put me in the role of taking down a game world full of hellspawn. Now I need more. I look at Doom and yes, despite its aged tech, it's setting no longer justifies it's simple game mechanics. I see the game for what it is, just a game, there is no sense of immersion. I'm always aware that the ai is going through simple algorithms and that I can shoot, strafe or run around the environment. It's a barren experience.

Gears of War, though not a great narrative, was still a fun narrative. I had enough story in it that I dont mind revisiting the co-op campaign six times now. It's enough that it justifies the world, gives context to the mechanics, and explains the characters relations. Dom is not a 3d character model, he is Dom, etc. The story and its setting allow me to suspend disbelief, envelope myself in a gamer's moment of immersion and experience the game world for what it is.

Oblivion, all mechanic debates aside, drew me in with all the little quest lines. I found that is what kept me coming back to the game, not the mechanics themselves of how I fight or cast spells.

So I disagree with Ken. Besides, I dont think the Madden player is the prime example of a target audience interested or not interested in story, they just want to enjoy their sport in a very visceral simulated way with solid mechanics.

But then again, maybe I'm the one, upon looking in the mirror, who must realize I'm not the prime example of where the profit lies with the modern gamer.

I guess "I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all outta gum" was already taken.... damn.