Reading a discussion about Indigo Prophecy on Slashdot today, someone brought up an interesting perspective:

Man, when will these game developers get the idea that *story is not the point*.

Now I backpedal. I realize that some people enjoyed this game, and some *would* like a larger helping of narrative in their games. But every time I see another article talking about narrative as if a lack of it is the one thing holding games back, a little bit of “twitch” gamer in me feels like it’s been kicked in the crotch. There are many of us who don’t want a game whose purpose is to funnel us through a story.

Despite all the talk of cinematic games and making writers on video games a more integral part of the process instead of some hack they hired to slap some cockneyed drivel in an instruction booklet, perhaps it might be worthwhile to step back for a moment and consider if this is something we really want to happen. Using Indigo Prophecy as an example, this was a game that was supposed to be all about the story and the end result, strictly on those merits, is a shoddy shell of a plot and some weirdly unsatisfying gameplay. Maybe we’ve been barking up the wrong tree?

It doesn’t help when people start making Matrix parallels and pointing out that not even strictly narrative mediums like film are always so great about bringing the story in full force. In movies the only thing that can really get in the way of the story is whiz-bang special effects that are expensive and oftentimes repetitive save for those exceedingly rare leaps forward in effects technology. Yet even something as ultimately pointless as that can serve to distract from a lack of serious writing effort. How can it be reasonably expected that game designers will ever look at all the effort that has to go into making a game actually fun to play and say, “No, let’s spend more time on the script instead”?

Then consider the “good ol’ days” of 8-bit NES and even earlier Atari games: Most of those had barely passing nods to storylines and yet are revered in many cases as being spectacular games whose legacy cannot be denied. Can anyone say that Super Mario Brothers 3, as fun as it may have been, was delivering anything remotely resembling a coherent plot? If anything it had an identical plot to the original Super Mario Brothers… and one that can be summarized in half a sentence. Would it have been a better game with a rich and compelling story? Is there such a thing as a gameplay-only video game masterpiece?

Perhaps SMB3 would have been even better with some immersive story elements. It hardly matters: Pure game experiences are not exempt from excellence the same way that a special effects extravaganza is not exempt from being an enjoyable moviegoing experience just because it doesn’t deliver Shakespeare-quality writing. Visceral entertainment has its place and some great games are either purposely or inconsequentially devoid of backstory and linear narrative progression.

What really matters then is when a game tries to bring a story aspect to the table and in doing so fumbles the execution, usually through incompleteness. This is the same valid criticism levelled at the Matrix sequels: Where the first was full of intriguing and well conceptualized plot hooks and ideas, the latter showed a decided lack of follow-through on the part of the writers to have anything beyond a few well conceptualized plot hooks and ideas.

So to a certain extent the Slashdot poster is correct: The story is indeed not the point. A game need not have a bestseller-ready plot to be great, so long as the gameplay compensates for the lack of immersiveness and depth with its own strength. But games that use a narrative device to propel the action forward need to make sure that they don’t fall into the trap of thinking that narrative as just a mechanism whose internal consistency and completeness is secondary to its function in terms of the game. The two aspects must be correctly woven together to create a stronger whole and while perhaps not as strong separately, at least capable of standing alone apart from the other. Consider two opposite examples: Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic has some good gameplay and a solid storyline that remains well executed throughout. One could novelize the plot and come away with perhaps an average book and one could use the game engine without context as a sort of bland role-playing adventure. They exist semi-effectively alone but together create one of the best games of the last five years. Now consider Indigo Prophecy: Without the game, the story would be just as inane as it stands today leaving only the game itself as motivation to compel the progression of the plot. Yet the game mechanics themselves are drab and uninteresting when removed from the context of the game so they don’t provide enough incentive in and of themselves to encourage continuing. Separately weak, combined they are just as weak if not weaker. In fact the only real reason the game is finishable is probably due to its remarkably brief time investment.

It isn’t that stories aren’t important to games, it’s merely that stories aren’t treated as important. Gamers like the Slashdot poster who balk at being pushed through a story because they would prefer a more pure gaming experience are not wrong for wanting such, but there will likely always be the types of games which don’t lend themselves to narrative. And when they do pick up story-driven games you can’t blame them for being dissatisfied at the result, especially when it doesn’t seem compelling enough to have interrupted their game-only experience anyway. The solution is not less story in games, but rather better integration and above all, more respect for what positive effects quality writing can have on the finished product.