Dodo Blog

I read this post on Steve Gaynor’s Fullbright blog and was compelled to respond:

Good storytelling is underrated. “Player-generated stories” aren’t usually all that good. They offer good moments, but not good narrative. I agree that games should give the player an interesting place to visit, but that’s not enough. If it doesn’t go anywhere it becomes a toy that feels ultimately pointless.

Progressing narrative and player freedom are not mutually exclusive. What story does is provide a context.

Freedom without purpose is boring. I don’t like games telling me what I should be doing, but a well-designed game will make it clear what I *could* be doing, explicitly or otherwise. There’s a difference between exploring and wandering around aimlessly.

I don’t get this need to divorce low-level mechanics from high-level direction, as if the alternative is absolute linearity… like the only two games that can exist are The Marriage and Metal Gear Solid.

A good story will make a free world more interesting to interact with and give meaning to the choices you make in it. Portal was a clever puzzle game that was made genius by the introduction of Glados and the Companion Cube. Admittedly a linear example, but certainly a mechanic that greatly benefited from story. Gothic (the first) is an interesting RPG because it has a great setup and then throws you into a wide open world with that context colouring your every interaction and those of the people around you.

A story will keep a world from becoming static. If all that changes in your sandbox are numbers, the same nameless NPC giving you the same generic task there’s only so much you can get out of that. If your core mechanics are really good, they can only benefit from being given story to relate to.

Starcraft is a pretty fun game, but I would have never finished it if it wasn’t for Sarah Kerrigan and Jim Raynor. Does that mean it should have been a movie?

Of course not.