Stories Told Through Video Games

"Vidyuh gums?" a lot, in fact most of you, might be thinking, "Those don't have stories! Or at least decent ones!" Personally, I disagree, but that's just me. The ratio of how many video games I play to how many books I read might be involved with this, but if the goal of a story is to create emotion, then video games work much, much better for me.

However, I have to admit that games don't really use their full potential. It seems like you have to balance quality of gameplay and quality of story, that both can't be good. Heavy Rain is what you get when you focus on story; the gameplay is decent and interesting, but it's more of an interactive movie. On the other hand...well...most of us have played a Mario game at some point, and we all know the extent of the plot. But the gameplay is (usually) fantastic enough to compensate.

The "full potential" of video game stories is easy to point out, but next to impossible to achieve, hence the reason there's only about two games in existence that are praised for their stories. (That number might be an exaggeration, but you know what I mean.) Imagine the difficulty of writing a novel, but add the element of dropping the reader into the novel. Congratulations, you've imagined a video game.

Firstly, a lot of video games, in my opinion, fail to include the world in the story. Sure, you got a fancy wooden sword from an old man in a cave, but is there anything else about the old man? The sword? The cave? Are they relevant in any way? (I realize I'm talking about an early NES game, it's just an example. Chill pill.) Yay, another weapon vendor. I guess that's the extent of ambition in everyone ever in all the universes.
Skyrim is a good example of this. On your quest to slay Alduin, the dragon prophesied to end the world, you decide to collect a few random bounties, kill the occasional dragon which has no bearing on anything but a mountain peak, become a vampire, get married, buy a house, build another house, become a thane, sacrifice your housecarl on a demon altar, become a male priest in an all-female religion dedicated to matchmaking, and stumble upon a talking dog with an out-of-place New Jersey accent that you follow into a cave just because you tend to follow talking dogs who tell you their master is a demon god. Alduin is just a boss that you can decide to fight at your leisure.
That would be like if Frodo decided "I will do it! I will take the Ring to Mordor. When I'm bored of doing everyone else's jobs and I happen to be passing by." Which only gets worse when Sauron is content with his decision and courteously waits until he comes to destroy the Ring to do anything. On the other hand, if Alduin did eventually destroy the world, the sense of urgency would be so high that you couldn't enjoy the side quests, or anything else for that matter. The game would be much more linear, and wouldn't be Elder Scrolls anymore. It would be Call of Duty: Skyrim.
This all makes it seem that maybe a good story isn't possible in Skyrim, but Majora's Mask seemed to do an apocalypse plot while still allowing exploration and an open world, albeit on a smaller scale, just fine. In Majora's Mask, if you don't save the world in three game days, the moon crashes into it and...you know. But since it's incredibly unlikely to actually do it in three games days, when the moon hits Hyrule, or you do this of your own accord, time reverses to day one. Time travel in Skyrim might be too out-of-place, but it's still possible to include SOME sense of importance to being the world's savior, rather than just being a hobby you do on the side.

Linear games seem to do this better, though not much. Dishonored uses gameplay elements that both are important to the story and reflect the world itself. You can use magic now, yay, big whoop. Except magic is banned and the state cult is hunting it down Salem Witch Trials style. Occasionally, rat swarms will attack anyone that gets near, which is almost a video game cliche. Except these rats are why you left the city to plea for aid and returned just in time to be framed for murdering the Empress in the first place. Whale bone runes aren't just points to score another magic ability that are littered around; merely with scrambled notes and the pitiful environment you find them in, a whole new aspect of the already-dystopian world is added, you start having second thoughts about trusting the weird god man who tells you to collect them, and you get a little more depressed each time you find them in a room filled with body bags and sad diaries. Then you actually feel like you improve the world when you progress the story. Exploding barrel cliche? These exploding barrels are just another detail for world immersion, as they're filled with the city's very source of power.
This all isn't even in regards to the relationship between the gameplay and the story - what the story does to the gameplay and vice versa. It's something a lot of games can expand upon, and even makes room for a theme to be expressed solely with the gameplay.
The goal of the silent protagonist is to get revenge on a handful of conspirators. You can do this several ways, but how you do it affects everything else. Lethally or non-lethally are the two basic methods. Lethally is centered more on revenge - but doesn't help the world at all. Things only deteriorate further both for you personally and for the rest of the city of Dunwall. Avoiding killing concentrates on ironic justice instead. Brand the cult zealot a heretic, broadcast a confession of the Lord Regent's sins to the city, spare the assassin at gunpoint. All of this makes Dunwall that much of a better place.
The theme might not be clear in this game, (especially since "Revenge solves everything" is plastered on the back, yet revenge only makes things worse for you) but it's a concept that a lot of other game writers can learn from. Themes expressed through gameplay is something that almost defines indie games as well.

But that's just what I think. Not that video games simply don't have good stories, but that most - maybe all of them simply don't use every asset to make it something great. If a game can combine its gameplay, soundtrack, and art, (okay, graphics, whatever) to complement the story, it could become one of the best mediums of storytelling. No longer is it about sympathizing with the Man Who Learned Better, you learn better.

A Fairly Common Grammatical Misunderstanding

There is a grammatical misunderstanding which people use in both colloquial and written English which I find a bit annoying, partly because I find that I cannot always know what is the person’s intended meaning behind the statement.

Read the following sentences:

• What if everyone is not at the park?

• What if no one is at the park?

• What if not everyone is at the park?

I call the first sentence a grammatical misunderstanding, not a grammatical error, because the first sentence does make sense and follows correct grammar. However, the person’s intended meaning behind the sentence may not be what his/her listeners understand.

• “No one is...” means that there is not anyone, not a single person, in the given instance.

• “Not everyone is...” refers to the fact that there is a part of “everyone” which is not in a given instance.

• “Everyone is not…” is simply a different wording of “no one is,” putting emphasis on the fact that the whole – the “everyone” – is not in a given instance. A speaker or writer may intend to communicate that “not everyone” is in a given instance, but because they say that “everyone is not” in the given instance, that gives the indication that “no one” is in the given instance.

Does this make sense?

~ Fintan