my opinion is that most games just don't incorporate the stories in the right way.
rift certainly doesn't. I run by and "oh my, it's an ascended" another player runs by and it's the same thing.
I have yet to see many players making their own stories either with the exception of some role players.
These dev made stories should probably be more about personal stories for the player over trying to incorporate the entire world unless it IS a world event that can incorporate many players without artificially singling them out.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If you're talking about plot, sure. We're talking about story. Before biting someone's head off, try fact checking first.
Sadly, much too often things tend to devolve into argueing for argument's sake as is the case here. My point was not so much an objection as a genuine perspective, born of what I, as a fan of stories and storytelling, think and feel about them. Thus the post was not "biting one's head off", as you fervently perceived, but just lending another perspective into the matter. Instead of trying to "correct" me, I encourage you to address the meat of my post. I had a point, and my definition of story (which is not even something I made up, "trying to be clever or something", but let's not fall into that; I'm sure you can find the ever-evolving broader definitions of story and plot if you wish to) was intimately linked to that point - which is what people like I expect as content when we talk about stories, and the nonaligntment of player expectations born out of that.
To rephrase, someone like I who loves reading stories (and maybe even thinking about them and talking about them) is seldom satisified with a simplistic and shallow recount of events that happened to happen to someone. When we talk about stories, we mean something much, much more than that. So when I see people saying "I want to write my own story", I think "Hey, that's not the story I'm talking about. Where's all the good stuff that makes up a story? I don't want to make due with that as story content. I want rich, professionally written stories, with character arcs, subtext, symbolism and maybe even a twist here and there". I believe this is the part we should be discussing. How are masses of people who have probably never given much thought into the nature of stories, what defines them and what enables them have such profound lasting effect on people, going to provide the content a story proponent such as myself loves?
In short: Say I want Planescape: Torment-quality story in my game. Do you believe "I want to write my story" people can provide me that? Because I really don't think they can, and I really don't think I can.
If we are talking about themeparks then I would say that an increased empasis is a good thing. It makes the game more fun to go through a story. But I'll always prefer the sandbox where we the players create the epic storyline of the world.
Sadly, much too often things tend to devolve into argueing for argument's sake as is the case here. My point was not so much an objection as a genuine perspective, born of what I, as a fan of stories and storytelling, think and feel about them. Thus the post was not "biting one's head off", as you fervently perceived, but just lending another perspective into the matter. Instead of trying to "correct" me, I encourage you to address the meat of my post. I had a point, and my definition of story (which is not even something I made up, "trying to be clever or something", but let's not fall into that; I'm sure you can find the ever-evolving broader definitions of story and plot if you wish to) was intimately linked to that point - which is what people like I expect as content when we talk about stories, and the nonaligntment of player expectations born out of that.
To rephrase, someone like I who loves reading stories (and maybe even thinking about them and talking about them) is seldom satisified with a simplistic and shallow recount of events that happened to happen to someone. When we talk about stories, we mean something much, much more than that. So when I see people saying "I want to write my own story", I think "Hey, that's not the story I'm talking about. Where's all the good stuff that makes up a story? I don't want to make due with that as story content. I want rich, professionally written stories, with character arcs, subtext, symbolism and maybe even a twist here and there". I believe this is the part we should be discussing. How are masses of people who have probably never given much thought into the nature of stories, what defines them and what enables them have such profound lasting effect on people, going to provide the content a story proponent such as myself loves?
In short: Say I want Planescape: Torment-quality story in my game. Do you believe "I want to write my story" people can provide me that? Because I really don't think they can, and I really don't think I can.
Again, you're talking about plot, not story. If you're going to tell someone their concept of a story is "not a story at all", then try to know your terminology before hand.
Wikipedia: Plot is a literary term for the events a story comprises, particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern, a sequence, through cause and effect, or by coincidence. One is generally interested in how well this pattern of events accomplishes some artistic or emotional effect.
If you want all those things, there are games for you. They're called singleplayer games! Shock! Shock horror!
I think a lot of the issue in MMOs these days is this culture of "I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU DID IN THIS GAME, DO IT EASIER / MY WAY / WHAT I WANT" which has reduced MMOs to pander to these infantile adults who refuse to grow up and respect the concept that maybe some territory isn't for them. It's like soloers joining FFXI and completely missing the fucking point.
An MMO should have a rich lore with many interesting characters and storylines that drive the environement making it a dynamic exciting place to play in.
If an MMO however has a single overarching storyline of which my character is the star I'm supremely disinterested. I was very disappointed in AoC when starting I found out that I, and every other character was the one that the stars had foretold was coming to save whatever. Aside from being limiting and silly in a multiplayer game, it also felt embarrassingly immature (ironic for a game supposedly 'mature') that ever character is the hero of the game. Whenever the story tells me who my character is without any input from me it kills the opportunity immersion.
Say in a game you hopped onto a boat, went up a river in Africa, sought out a European man with godlike status among the natives, and watched him die. Would you say you just wrote "Heart of Darkness", or even recreated its story?
I don't think people who say "I want to write my own story" truly understand the same thing from a "story" with most people who are story proponents. To me what you're talking about is not a story - it's just things you happen to do and stuff that happens to you in a game. A story should have a deliberate design, themes, character arcs and subtext, and it had better have depth and if we're lucky, even profundity .
"A poor farmer rising to be a mercenary"? That's not a story, that's just a pitch line, a stock concept for a story, devoid of merit and meaning. The distance you need to cover till you have a real story on your hands is for all practical intents and purposes the same as before you came up with that pitch line. And an overwhelming majority of people are no good at covering that distance to come up with full stories that are more than tired concepts, thus most amateur "stories" in games usually turn out to be bearable only by their own writer - and this is actually quite consistent with our experience from books!
There is no set rule on how much freedom you're supposed to have in a game. In Minecraft you have loads of it, in Planescape: Torment you have much less of it, and in The Longest Journey, you have even less of it. Each of those is a brilliant game in its own genre, and it's absurd to claim "story" does not work with the latter two. Granted, we may not have seen it to really work in MMOs yet, but I'm inclined to chalk it up to traditionally lazy storytelling in this genre and having it as an afterthought.
I don't know if you're trying to be clever or something, but the purely clinical defintion of Story is:-
Wikipedia: Story is a common term for a recounting of a sequence of events, or for a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question (see narrative).
Dictionary.com:1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale.
3. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story.
5. a narration of an incident or a series of events or an example of these that is or may be narrated, as an anecdote, joke, etc.
6. a narration of the events in the life of a person or the existence of a thing, or such events as a subject for narration: the story of medicine; the story of his life.
7. a report or account of a matter; statement or allegation: The story goes that he rejected the offer.
------
If you're talking about plot, sure. We're talking about story. Before biting someone's head off, try fact checking first.
I noticed how you intentionally left out the number 4 of the different definitions for the word "story", from dictionary.com. So I'll post it here:
"the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc.: The characterizations were good, but the story was weak"
In other words: dictionary.com yields one definition in which story = plot. That definition is enough to justify the use of the word "story "in the manner which you initially objected against.
In other words: dictionary.com yields one definition in which story = plot. That definition is enough to justify the use of the word "story "in the manner which you initially objected against.
You do realise that the other poster was objecting to people misusing the word, right? I was setting him straight by pointing out there are AT LEAST five definitions of the word story that say he is wrong.
Story is motivation for me. When RPGs don't put in a storyline/s for me to follow the whole experience comes across as shallow, nothing more than leveling for levelings sake and collecting items and goodies for no reason, so a lot like real life :P.
Some games work well being story light, like FPS games, where the the action is just fun and you don't need much reason to do it. However I play RPGs because I want to develop my character, this includes both abilities and personality, beliefs, motivation etc. a holistic approach to character development. To do that in a meaningful sense I need a storyline that personally involves my character, and really one where I can make choices during the storyline. To me this is what a RPG is about. Doing the whole "making my own story" thing isn't very satisfying because it is something I made up and projected onto the game and is not an actual part of it.
This is not to say MMOs have done a great job with story, the subtleties of storytelling are mostly lost, the dialog is presented in the most unapealing way possible, you have no impact in the story and everyone obviously can't be the choosen one, so MMO devs really have to rethink their approach.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
1) A decent setting - Set the basic stage and background of the game at the onset and that's it, because...
2) Freedom, options in gameplay yourself and of course with your friends. Actions that affect the game world. Give the kids a few toys, an open playground, and let them play. They'll figure it out. They'll make their own drama.
3) Character Customization - Not just at creation, either.
I've cared less about a story to string me along because like any other story, you will run out of it. When you are grouped, other players will be nagging to skip the damn cutscene anyways. I've also grown to dislike predetermined courses that tell what's going to happen to your character regardless of what you do. Some give a few options, but they all usually come to the same outcome eventually. You can stray a little bit, but you have to go back to the "Epic Quest" line to actually progress.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
In other words: dictionary.com yields one definition in which story = plot. That definition is enough to justify the use of the word "story "in the manner which you initially objected against.
You do realise that the other poster was objecting to people misusing the word, right? I was setting him straight by pointing out there are AT LEAST five definitions of the word story that say he is wrong.
He was merely pointing out that self-made amateur stories would likely not be sufficiently entertaining for him. His inclination to not even consider a certain kind of "stories" to be actual "stories" implies snobbism rather than a factual objection against how to use the word "story".
Again, you're talking about plot, not story. If you're going to tell someone their concept of a story is "not a story at all", then try to know your terminology before hand.
Wikipedia: Plot is a literary term for the events a story comprises, particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern, a sequence, through cause and effect, or by coincidence. One is generally interested in how well this pattern of events accomplishes some artistic or emotional effect.
If you want all those things, there are games for you. They're called singleplayer games! Shock! Shock horror!
I think a lot of the issue in MMOs these days is this culture of "I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU DID IN THIS GAME, DO IT EASIER / MY WAY / WHAT I WANT" which has reduced MMOs to pander to these infantile adults who refuse to grow up and respect the concept that maybe some territory isn't for them. It's like soloers joining FFXI and completely missing the fucking point.
Even by that definition you link, I still would not be talking about plot. Plot is at its barest definition a consequential ordering of events in a story. It is only part of story. Subtext and symbolism and even character design is not its job. So you are not applying what you're reading there to my post correctly - either the meaning of my post escapes you, or the meaning of that entry.
But anyway, again, instead of trying to make this devolve into petty argument of definitions, why not touch on my fundamental point?
Oh, you did? Yes, you basically said: "Go play other games." How astute. It's uncanny how that sounds like "Go live in another country".
The thing is, I like MMOs and I like story-driven content, and there are many others like me, and we aren't going anywhere, and we can't wait to have good stories in these games. And you know what? The developers are surely taking notice. So it seems to me, you are more the one that's part of the "DO IT MY WAY!" culture here, because I don't see myself getting worked up and blaming other people on forums about the state of a gaming genre. And I'm not joining EVE Online (probably my favorite MMO over the years) expecting good storylines, either. I am fully aware of the design philosophy of that game, and I fully accept it and enjoy it. And I look for my narrative needs elsewhere. See, many MMOs have a go at storytelling, but do a bad job of it - I want to see some MMOs do a good job of it.
And if there are developers willing to deliver that... Why is it a problem for you? Why does it make you act like the alleged "culture" you so obviously despise?
Even by that definition you link, I still would not be talking about plot. Plot is at its barest definition a consequential ordering of events in a story. It is only part of story. Subtext and symbolism and even character design is not its job. So you are not applying what you're reading there to my post correctly - either the meaning of my post escapes you, or the meaning of that entry.
But anyway, again, instead of trying to make this devolve into petty argument of definitions, why not touch on my fundamental point?
Oh, you did? Yes, you basically said: "Go play other games." How astute. It's uncanny how that sounds like "Go live in another country".
The thing is, I like MMOs and I like story-driven content, and there are many others like me, and we aren't going anywhere, and we can't wait to have good stories in these games. And you know what? The developers are surely taking notice. So it seems to me, you are more the one that's part of the "DO IT MY WAY!" culture here, because I don't see myself getting worked up and blaming other people on forums about the state of a gaming genre. And I'm not joining EVE Online (probably my favorite MMO over the years) expecting good storylines, either. I am fully aware of the design philosophy of that game, and I fully accept it and enjoy it. And I look for my narrative needs elsewhere. See, many MMOs have a go at storytelling, but do a bad job of it - I want to see some MMOs do a good job of it.
And if there are developers willing to deliver that... Why is it a problem for you? Why does it make you act like the alleged "culture" you so obviously despise?
lol. Did you really just argue that plot (the element of the convergence of events in a story as well as the underlying meaning, similar to your "Heart of Darkness" example in which case it was the darkness of man etc) has nothing to do with what you said before?
Sadly, over the years, gamers that want crack addict constant injections have eroded the basis of reasonable MMO worlds (WoW is the perfect example here, really, it basically follows the trend EXACTLY) in an attempt at that pixie dust high. There ARE no games for people like me. There're so many for people like you and yet you still bitch and try to change other people's designs to have "EPICZ OVERLYING PLOTLINES SO COOOOL".
EVE Online has some of the most epic storylines ever told in a game. It has wars between corporations over resources and the ability to change the nature of the galaxy. It has Goon Squad's war against much larger, more established Corps using hilariously underpowered ships in a war of attrition.
It has real people doing real things in a virtual world. THIS is epic. Not some fucking bullshit cutscene where some cliched turd gets killed off.
It may not have good STORYTELLING (that's a matter left up to individual writers), but it certainly has amazing STORIES.
Why are you trying to change this thread to suit your definitions? We all know what the OP is talking about, why don't you?
You unravel it with you friends and find out what happens next and play through it. Take it as a separate chunk of content made for you. Enjoy it as it is. It shouldn't matter that everyone else has done the same thing. Ask yourself, why does it matter?
I'm not saying that's wrong, or that no games should do it. I'm just saying that it doesn't entice me. I see where you're coming from. It really just hinges on whether or not you can ignore that other poeple do the same thing, but I feel that a good story can really engage its audience emotionally. Back when I played Final Fantasy 7, I felt genuine sadness when Aries bit the bullet (spoiler alert). Granted, I was 13 at the time, but still, I wouldn't have felt that way had Cloud been replaced with some generic husk that I'm supposed to project myself into, or some scene that's designed for everyone else's husk. I dunno, It's like seeing your significant other making out with somone else. It kind of robs your own experience a little.
If a story works in a single player RPG why does it not wotk in an MMO? When you played FF7 did you realize that millions of other people had seen the same exact thing that you had? Did you understand that this game had not been designed just for you and played only by you? In the end Cloud was a generic Husk that was designed for millions and millions of people. Why was it different? Was it just because you didn't see thousands of other people running around?
WoW had solved the problem of seeing the world as it was before whatever heroic quest chain thing you completed with their phasing technology. So in theory if it was used correctly should that not give you a very similar experience? NPC's die and stay dead, the world burns..etc etc.
It does not matter if other people have the same experience as you. In life that is always going to be a reality. If you were standing in front of the pyramids in Egypt would it matter that millions of other people have seen the same thing as you for thousands of years? Does that diminish the experience?
The problem is not that there are stories in MMO's..the problem is the stories usually suck.
Here's my take on things. In MMOs, you're putting yourself in the game. it's not that fact that the same experiences are shared, it's the type of experiences. For instance, if I'm told to kill six wild boars for meat, or whatever, then it's believable that other people would be doing the same thing. However, when it comes to amazing, once-in-a-lifetime events, the fact that everyone else has the same adventure takes away some of its luster. Now, why I think it's different in Final Fantasy is because those events were happening to those characters and only those characters. It's just like if you hear an incredible story in the news, no matter how many people hear about it, it's still amazing. However, if that event were to actually happen to everyone then it would cease to be amazing. Does that make sense?
You're absolutely right; if NPCs stayed dead, or any of the effects of your quest didn't suddenly undo itself so that the next person can partake, then yes, it would be much more immersive. My issue with the stories that games like WoW provide is that they try to make you feel unique, where you're really just a part of something much larger than yourself. If the world doesn't change with the actions of the players, then there's really no story. Like when you down a raid boss, there could be some backstory about how evil it is and what an accomplishment it was to defeat it, but at the end of the day, absolutely nothing has changed. You can go right back and defeat the great evil, over and over and over. Or some other quest, where you save a burning village, then you get to watch other people save the same village from the same fire. It tears down the thrill that it has attempted to create.
Again, this is simply my opinion. I'm not disparaging anyone whom enjoys the quests or story that MMOs have to offer. I'm not looking for a vicious debate over how things should be done. I'm just curious about other people's views, and sharing mine.
Interesting comments. I am hyped because gw2 & tor themepark mmos will have much more story to go with the g8 visuals and other polished features of themepark mmos. Normally PvE holds little interest apart from discovery exploring a map. Story allows characters, personalities, emotions, conversations, drama etc. It should make the combat in PvE normally limited by the AI have some context or immersion or rp to it. Levelling vertically is tempered by interaction along story lines across the map.
I really hope that it pans out for GW2, but I'm not holding my breath. ANet are definitely being very ambitious. With the way Bioware has been going in the recent few games, I don't hold much hope anymore for SWToR.
I guess part of my burn-out for the extremely architectured storylines is that they've become so hand-holding recently. For example, if you finish a bunch of quests in one quest hub, they immediately give you a quest to go find the next quest hub. If you wander around the area, you don't uncover neat things that can give you new quests for example. You have to go the route intended for you in the game.
Again, old DAoC was incredibly immersive even with the few quests it had,outside of the tasks (a more appropriate name for what many games call quests). They weren't hand-holding though, as in where you planned to go next was up to you rather than the game company telling you where you had to go.
And much to EQ2's credit, you get exploration quests that you have to explore to even start and tons of interactive objects within the game world for those who are paying attention.
If you look at BG1 and BG2, partly what made them so successful was that each storyline was unique and interesting. You had to uncover some parts by going through the story. For example, the red-clad nobleman who hires the party in an inn in BG2 that turns out to be an extremely evil red dragon. Or the circus tent incident where a vengeful gnome illusionist is holding innocent people (made out to look like orcs and ogres) because they laughed when he screwed up a magic trick.
Why can't the writing in MMOs be more like that and not 'go find me ten shrubberies, ni!'? It's very rare to come across a quest or story in an MMO where there is an about-face like old Bioware used to put in their games. Wouldn't that already be a much more interesting story?
I also didn't get much of a sense of being an adventurer in many of the more recent MMOs. That's another thing that is lacking.
Though I felt 50-50 about GW1 in that there are many things I like about it but in almost equal measure I don't like about it, at least I got the sense of being a real adventurer. It also had some of the best mob AI bar none, especially from its second expac on.
I think the issue is that many single-player RPGs (especially BioWare RPGs) have attempted to MMO themselves whilst MMOs have been trying to become single-player games. So you get singleplayer games with stupid fetch quests and you get MMOs failing at giving epic quests and just giving us shitty fetch quests.
I guess one would start asking here, what can be done differently to enhance story-telling in MMOs? I prefer simpler to more complex. This is a bit long of a post, but it's just me throwing some ideas out here.
Phasing, for example, is one thing I probably would not use if I were to make my dream MMO. It brings in just as many problems as it attempts to 'solve'. One of the good things I can say about LotRO is that it divides players up based on how far you have gotten in your epic quest at least at the first few levels. I think using instancing rather than phasing is better for this, but with the caveat that players can go back to earlier instances if they're grouped up with people on a different stage of the quest.
Quests? To me a quest is a long-winded story that is difficult and takes time to complete. Quests in Dungeons and Dragons were never trivial. Most of the trivial 'go kill me 10 boars' are not quests.
I would call them tasks and make them more like accepting a task, or job, or a commission. For example, listening to rumours in a tavern you might hear that the local butcher is having trouble getting enough meat in from nearby farmers (perhaps because there is a problem with bandits blocking roads and therefore compromising supplies getting in and out). A player could then go to the butcher and get a commission to hunt some boar in the local forest to resupply the village and for every meat you bring him, you get a certain amount of xp and money. I think that would be nicer than just having a quest NPC say, go get me 10 boar meat. The sorts of jobs players can get could even vary: perhaps one player might be commissioned to hunt some boars for meat but perhaps another player has been commissioned to trap squirrels for pelts.
Things like job boards, rumours of passing NPCs, etc could be used to a more immersive effect to get the trivial tasks. And like in DAoC and EQ2, perhaps they could be entirely voluntary i.e. a player won't hurt himself advancement-wise if he doesn't do them. DAoC has the minitasks and bounty items, and EQ2 has writs. You don't have to do any of them to get to max level, but you get a little extra if you do.
In the same vein, I would not have a 'quest' where you're asked to diminish the population of local enemies, let's say bandits and then get asked to kill 15 bandits that repop within a minute. I would do it differently. Firstly, I'd do it through a bounty or wanted poster and offer money, xp, etc to the players for bringing in each bandit insignia, for example.
Quests on the other hand should be more involved. A great example would be the mayor of an undead plagued town hiring adventurers to go find out where the undead are coming from. Perhaps there is an entire crypt dungeon that needs to be gone through or some other way of conveying evidence that will lead to a more elaborate story. Rather than ending the story by killing the Archlich who would reappear within 5 minutes, perhaps it could be random sub-bosses with a different name, set of properties, etc and that the Archlich, like many of D&D's most infamous villains, can actually never be killed permanently (or perhaps you can just destroy the physical manifestation of the Archlich but because you can't find his phylactery it's only temporary).
Other story-telling elements that haven't been used in MMOs that could be interesting: ambushes of players/groups. This could be done either out in the wild or within a city. Let's say you've hunted tons of pirates, well maybe they get so pissed off at you they hire assassins to go after you.. Things like that.
Lastly, I think that games should provide the means to not have any storyline at all for given areas or at least make it so that players can choose to just sit and camp something like in EQ1, DAoC, etc if they want to and not severely hurt their abilities to advance.
Why are you trying to change this thread to suit your definitions? We all know what the OP is talking about, why don't you?
Well, I am not doing that at all. My point (which, to sum up, is that many people who love stories will not be satisfied with convergent gameplay as story content and that it's only natural) is vital to a conversation like this. Given that the OP mentions developers trying "to tailor a series of personalized events around me", I'd say he means more or less the same thing with me when talking about stories.
So yeah, on to why crafted, personalized, narrated stories? Here's my take on it:
Think of the real world. There's amazing stuff happening all the time. So some people could say (and some do, actually) that there are enough "stories" in life, why would anyone ever want to go and read artificial, manipulative ones we call novels? Or why would we want to go see movies which are not documentaries? Because we're not looking to just "witness" stuff, we're looking to be manipulated, narrated to, and maybe even temporarily coaxed into looking at imaginary events like they were real events - because that's an archaic, playful form of communication which works on a basic level: In its compact, well-honed way, it helps us relate to the world and other people better.
It's interesting to note that there are many many non-narrative film proponents who think cinema having story, especially dramatical structure, makes it too much like theater, and cinema should stay away from story content to really have its own character as an artform. In the end, though, most media with the potential to tell stories end up telling them. And a lot of them. That, I think, is remarkable.
When I see something amazing happening in a game like EVE or Ultima Online, it surprises or even awes me that "this stuff really happened, that it's possible in the game's limited-by-rules universe". For comparison, it feels a bit like witnessing a real event in the real world unfold, it's not at all like going through a narrative. The two experiences are wholly different to me. The former does not have the manipulative pacing, the emotional communication, the perspective that a novel does. To me, that perspective lends extra value and power to a medium. So if I can get it, in a well-crafted form and not a lazy afterthought, it does constitute a separate "good gameplay" experience to me.
Well, I am not doing that at all. My point (which, to sum up, is that many people who love stories will not be satisfied with convergent gameplay as story content and that it's only natural) is vital to a conversation like this. Given that the OP mentions developers trying "to tailor a series of personalized events around me", I'd say he means more or less the same thing with me when talking about stories.
Originally posted by blognorg
{mod edit}
Originally posted by solarine
So yeah, on to why crafted, personalized, narrated stories?
Ultimately, your argument breaks down on it's initial premise. Nothing about these stories is personalised. They are as cut and dry as any other story in any other medium. As soon as someone crafts a story, they make it less about the player and more about the developer forcing their vision onto the player.
The only way a story can be crafted, personalised and narrated is by the player writing that story themselves. As soon as you do a breadcrumb trail of "follow this quest!", you've taken away any individual personalisation of the story. The story is going to be the same when every player comes through it, it's not made for the player, it's made for the general public.
In order for a story to have real meaning, the player must craft it himself.
THIS is why people hate "story-based" games. The story is meaningless cliché.
So yeah, on to why crafted, personalized, narrated stories?
Ultimately, your argument breaks down on it's initial premise. Nothing about these stories is personalised. They are as cut and dry as any other story in any other medium. As soon as someone crafts a story, they make it less about the player and more about the developer forcing their vision onto the player.
The only way a story can be crafted, personalised and narrated is by the player writing that story themselves. As soon as you do a breadcrumb trail of "follow this quest!", you've taken away any individual personalisation of the story. The story is going to be the same when every player comes through it, it's not made for the player, it's made for the general public.
In order for a story to have real meaning, the player must craft it himself.
THIS is why people hate "story-based" games. The story is meaningless cliché.
That's why I was thinking it would be cool to have some basic mechanisms (like job boards or listening to rumours in a tavern for eg.) to get the tasks rather than calling them quests, and have far fewer tasks and quests in a game than there are currently in things like AoC, WoW, WAR, etc.
If developers had a lighter touch, people could actually make their own stories more often. A great example is EVE where players write fiction and even roleplay in many instances. All of the things going on are player-made: massive wars, trade wars, intrigues, etc. CCP only puts in the architecture and has a very light presence with the inclusion of PvE missions.
In DAoC, there is no real personalized story. In pre-NGE SWG, there was no personalized story. There were still a few quests here and there, but nothing that was extremely heroic or that fit into an over-arching scripted storyline like there are in WoW nowadays.
However, if you have absolutely NO story made up from quests, a lot of players get turned off of the game for the very opposite reason. They can't figure out what to do and complain that there is nothing worthwhile doing in the game. I do think that's why EQ1, AO, and DAoC, though 'popular' for the days, where never mainstream like WoW is today.
In other words, there seems to be two populations of players: those who enjoy highly architectured stories where they're made to feel like they're going through a movie, and those who prefer a lighter approach to story-telling and to be able to choose their own destiny more. I'd dare say that most people like on-rails experiences just from the demographics of how many people play those games.
I've burnt out on many games that fall in the first category, so I'm not entirely in that population. GW1, WoW, AoC, LotRO... I've burn out on those time and time again. I guess I fall almost squarely in the latter population, since EVE is the MMO I've subscribed longest to out of everything. However, I'm not 100% in it, since I enjoy EQ2 very much, but then I can stop questing and just run around exploring/killing stuff while harvesting if I want to, and I still get a good rate of xp while completing my own objectives.
but then I can stop questing and just run around exploring/killing stuff while harvesting if I want to, and I still get a good rate of xp while completing my own objectives.
This right here is probably one of my main complaints about story-driven games like WoW. You can't just stop and have other stuff to do. Either you're on board with the progression that the game wants, or you're not and have nothing to do.
Interesting comments. I am hyped because gw2 & tor themepark mmos will have much more story to go with the g8 visuals and other polished features of themepark mmos. Normally PvE holds little interest apart from discovery exploring a map. Story allows characters, personalities, emotions, conversations, drama etc. It should make the combat in PvE normally limited by the AI have some context or immersion or rp to it. Levelling vertically is tempered by interaction along story lines across the map.
I really hope that it pans out for GW2, but I'm not holding my breath. ANet are definitely being very ambitious. With the way Bioware has been going in the recent few games, I don't hold much hope anymore for SWToR.
I guess part of my burn-out for the extremely architectured storylines is that they've become so hand-holding recently. For example, if you finish a bunch of quests in one quest hub, they immediately give you a quest to go find the next quest hub. If you wander around the area, you don't uncover neat things that can give you new quests for example. You have to go the route intended for you in the game.
Again, old DAoC was incredibly immersive even with the few quests it had,outside of the tasks (a more appropriate name for what many games call quests). They weren't hand-holding though, as in where you planned to go next was up to you rather than the game company telling you where you had to go.
And much to EQ2's credit, you get exploration quests that you have to explore to even start and tons of interactive objects within the game world for those who are paying attention.
If you look at BG1 and BG2, partly what made them so successful was that each storyline was unique and interesting. You had to uncover some parts by going through the story. For example, the red-clad nobleman who hires the party in an inn in BG2 that turns out to be an extremely evil red dragon. Or the circus tent incident where a vengeful gnome illusionist is holding innocent people (made out to look like orcs and ogres) because they laughed when he screwed up a magic trick.
Why can't the writing in MMOs be more like that and not 'go find me ten shrubberies, ni!'? It's very rare to come across a quest or story in an MMO where there is an about-face like old Bioware used to put in their games. Wouldn't that already be a much more interesting story?
I also didn't get much of a sense of being an adventurer in many of the more recent MMOs. That's another thing that is lacking.
Though I felt 50-50 about GW1 in that there are many things I like about it but in almost equal measure I don't like about it, at least I got the sense of being a real adventurer. It also had some of the best mob AI bar none, especially from its second expac on.
That's some historic context to story/quests in MMOs. I've not played MMO that long tbh so that's a good read here for me : )
Themepark MMOs seem to have all the investment and polish atm in the industry and it's ridiculously easy for them to churn out inumberably beautiful landscapes and awesome looking worlds and creations; I'm still SHOCKED there are players left who "ooh & argh!" over a new mmo announcement and/or fly-over video of a new world on a new shiny engine! It's great but behind glass is all I think at that stage/demonstration.
When you play you find immediately: 1) Card-board thinness to the world's interactions with you and 2) to the mobs/npc's interactions with you equally lacking depth.
DEs are supposed to sort out 1) and Personal Story (PS) I am expecting will sort out 2) limitations imposed by AI giving you choices and depth of feeling and narrative to pursue and explore the world and listen and learn about.
That's a really brief summary of why PS has me very excited for themepark mmos.
The REAL problem with a lot of MMOs is the hand-holding as you say but themepark mmos are all about a guided experience. Sandbox is the only place I'd really expect to find something where players can create/interact and develop their own meaning in game terms. At least a good ripping yarn in an MMO will add to the combat polish etc of a themepark and it's shiny graphics, even if it is by the writing team/lore team (let's hope they are pros!).
This right here is probably one of my main complaints about story-driven games like WoW. You can't just stop and have other stuff to do. Either you're on board with the progression that the game wants, or you're not and have nothing to do.
I have the same complaint as you do. The sad thing is, it didn't used to be that way. I remember distinctively being able to go out and explore, killing mobs along the way, (perhaps on my way to a quest hee hee) in Vanilla WoW and making a decent amount of xp. Now it's impossible with the revamped areas to go out at explore because so many quest hubs have been seeded in, even if they only offer 1 or 2 quests. Everything you see now in a zone has to do with the storyline.
That's not to say that it isn't entertaining to see the revamped areas once, but the problem is what happens after? The replayability in my opinion sort of sucks in Cata, even pre-level 60.
That's some historic context to story/quests in MMOs. I've not played MMO that long tbh so that's a good read here for me : )
Themepark MMOs seem to have all the investment and polish atm in the industry and it's ridiculously easy for them to churn out inumberably beautiful landscapes and awesome looking worlds and creations; I'm still SHOCKED there are players left who "ooh & argh!" over a new mmo announcement and/or fly-over video of a new world on a new shiny engine! It's great but behind glass is all I think at that stage/demonstration.
When you play you find immediately: 1) Card-board thinness to the world's interactions with you and 2) to the mobs/npc's interactions with you equally lacking depth.
DEs are supposed to sort out 1) and Personal Story (PS) I am expecting will sort out 2) limitations imposed by AI giving you choices and depth of feeling and narrative to pursue and explore the world and listen and learn about.
That's a really brief summary of why PS has me very excited for themepark mmos.
The REAL problem with a lot of MMOs is the hand-holding as you say but themepark mmos are all about a guided experience. Sandbox is the only place I'd really expect to find something where players can create/interact and develop their own meaning in game terms. At least a good ripping yarn in an MMO will add to the combat polish etc of a themepark and it's shiny graphics, even if it is by the writing team/lore team (let's hope they are pros!).
Very well-said. I especially like how you say the world is behind glass in the on-rails approach.
There seem to be two kinds of themepark games though.
One variety is barely a themepark and almost a sandbox in the sense that it might have zones that are level-based, and a few quests here and there, but there are no in-game indications where to go next after you've out-leveled the area. You either ask a fellow player (or go to a third party website if you're really stumped), or you go and explore. EQ1, AO, and DAoC fit into this category. The themepark tag was given to them because their gameworld was loosely structured on level ranges and a lot of players associate levels with themeparks automatically in opposition to some other games that were out at the time that fit in the sandbox variety, namely UO. You can come up with your own stories and do your own thing in these older games, no doubt about it.
The second variety is completely storyline-based, on-rails, and the player is always told where to go next. I won't describe this in anymore detail you already know the rest Pretty much everything to be released after EQ2 has been like this, even VG where there are tons of quests (though you can play that in a less quest-heavy way... I'll give it that).
I don't know what games you've played and I don't know how much Flippy Darkpaw, the EQ1 Progression server, is like the EQ I played back in 2001, but if you tried it, you'd see immediately the differences between an EQ1 themepark and a WoW themepark (or AoC, WAR, etc.). Tons of forum posters repeat ad nauseum that WoW is an EQ clone, but not really in my opinion.
My two centimes is that it's not really themeparks in general that are the problem, it's the modern incarnation of themeparks that is.
38 studios is taking the approach of making your own story and bleeding it into the world. I believe GH2 is also attempting the same thing. Story is essentially the background lore in an mmo.
What people don't realize is that when you play an mmorpg, you're playing someone elses vision, their IP. Not yours. It's like a movie. Your following someone elses script and you're just playing a role in it. I think the best way to implement a story is to have a mainplot in which has a beginning, middle and end. And let the players as a server freely influence the world and choose the different paths to the story. Sort of like a huge choose your own story adventure book deal. I think this could only be successful if the mmo was hosted on a single shard server.
Comments
my opinion is that most games just don't incorporate the stories in the right way.
rift certainly doesn't. I run by and "oh my, it's an ascended" another player runs by and it's the same thing.
I have yet to see many players making their own stories either with the exception of some role players.
These dev made stories should probably be more about personal stories for the player over trying to incorporate the entire world unless it IS a world event that can incorporate many players without artificially singling them out.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Sadly, much too often things tend to devolve into argueing for argument's sake as is the case here. My point was not so much an objection as a genuine perspective, born of what I, as a fan of stories and storytelling, think and feel about them. Thus the post was not "biting one's head off", as you fervently perceived, but just lending another perspective into the matter. Instead of trying to "correct" me, I encourage you to address the meat of my post. I had a point, and my definition of story (which is not even something I made up, "trying to be clever or something", but let's not fall into that; I'm sure you can find the ever-evolving broader definitions of story and plot if you wish to) was intimately linked to that point - which is what people like I expect as content when we talk about stories, and the nonaligntment of player expectations born out of that.
To rephrase, someone like I who loves reading stories (and maybe even thinking about them and talking about them) is seldom satisified with a simplistic and shallow recount of events that happened to happen to someone. When we talk about stories, we mean something much, much more than that. So when I see people saying "I want to write my own story", I think "Hey, that's not the story I'm talking about. Where's all the good stuff that makes up a story? I don't want to make due with that as story content. I want rich, professionally written stories, with character arcs, subtext, symbolism and maybe even a twist here and there". I believe this is the part we should be discussing. How are masses of people who have probably never given much thought into the nature of stories, what defines them and what enables them have such profound lasting effect on people, going to provide the content a story proponent such as myself loves?
In short: Say I want Planescape: Torment-quality story in my game. Do you believe "I want to write my story" people can provide me that? Because I really don't think they can, and I really don't think I can.
If we are talking about themeparks then I would say that an increased empasis is a good thing. It makes the game more fun to go through a story. But I'll always prefer the sandbox where we the players create the epic storyline of the world.
Remember Old School Ultima Online
Again, you're talking about plot, not story. If you're going to tell someone their concept of a story is "not a story at all", then try to know your terminology before hand.
Wikipedia: Plot is a literary term for the events a story comprises, particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern, a sequence, through cause and effect, or by coincidence. One is generally interested in how well this pattern of events accomplishes some artistic or emotional effect.
If you want all those things, there are games for you. They're called singleplayer games! Shock! Shock horror!
I think a lot of the issue in MMOs these days is this culture of "I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU DID IN THIS GAME, DO IT EASIER / MY WAY / WHAT I WANT" which has reduced MMOs to pander to these infantile adults who refuse to grow up and respect the concept that maybe some territory isn't for them. It's like soloers joining FFXI and completely missing the fucking point.
I'm all for a good story as long i can hit escape after the 2nd time through.
An MMO should have a rich lore with many interesting characters and storylines that drive the environement making it a dynamic exciting place to play in.
If an MMO however has a single overarching storyline of which my character is the star I'm supremely disinterested. I was very disappointed in AoC when starting I found out that I, and every other character was the one that the stars had foretold was coming to save whatever. Aside from being limiting and silly in a multiplayer game, it also felt embarrassingly immature (ironic for a game supposedly 'mature') that ever character is the hero of the game. Whenever the story tells me who my character is without any input from me it kills the opportunity immersion.
I noticed how you intentionally left out the number 4 of the different definitions for the word "story", from dictionary.com. So I'll post it here:
"the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc.: The characterizations were good, but the story was weak"
In other words: dictionary.com yields one definition in which story = plot. That definition is enough to justify the use of the word "story "in the manner which you initially objected against.
You do realise that the other poster was objecting to people misusing the word, right? I was setting him straight by pointing out there are AT LEAST five definitions of the word story that say he is wrong.
Story is motivation for me. When RPGs don't put in a storyline/s for me to follow the whole experience comes across as shallow, nothing more than leveling for levelings sake and collecting items and goodies for no reason, so a lot like real life :P.
Some games work well being story light, like FPS games, where the the action is just fun and you don't need much reason to do it. However I play RPGs because I want to develop my character, this includes both abilities and personality, beliefs, motivation etc. a holistic approach to character development. To do that in a meaningful sense I need a storyline that personally involves my character, and really one where I can make choices during the storyline. To me this is what a RPG is about. Doing the whole "making my own story" thing isn't very satisfying because it is something I made up and projected onto the game and is not an actual part of it.
This is not to say MMOs have done a great job with story, the subtleties of storytelling are mostly lost, the dialog is presented in the most unapealing way possible, you have no impact in the story and everyone obviously can't be the choosen one, so MMO devs really have to rethink their approach.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I can care less about a good story in an MMORPG.
There are 3 things I care about in an MMORPG.
1) A decent setting - Set the basic stage and background of the game at the onset and that's it, because...
2) Freedom, options in gameplay yourself and of course with your friends. Actions that affect the game world. Give the kids a few toys, an open playground, and let them play. They'll figure it out. They'll make their own drama.
3) Character Customization - Not just at creation, either.
I've cared less about a story to string me along because like any other story, you will run out of it. When you are grouped, other players will be nagging to skip the damn cutscene anyways. I've also grown to dislike predetermined courses that tell what's going to happen to your character regardless of what you do. Some give a few options, but they all usually come to the same outcome eventually. You can stray a little bit, but you have to go back to the "Epic Quest" line to actually progress.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
He was merely pointing out that self-made amateur stories would likely not be sufficiently entertaining for him. His inclination to not even consider a certain kind of "stories" to be actual "stories" implies snobbism rather than a factual objection against how to use the word "story".
Even by that definition you link, I still would not be talking about plot. Plot is at its barest definition a consequential ordering of events in a story. It is only part of story. Subtext and symbolism and even character design is not its job. So you are not applying what you're reading there to my post correctly - either the meaning of my post escapes you, or the meaning of that entry.
But anyway, again, instead of trying to make this devolve into petty argument of definitions, why not touch on my fundamental point?
Oh, you did? Yes, you basically said: "Go play other games." How astute. It's uncanny how that sounds like "Go live in another country".
The thing is, I like MMOs and I like story-driven content, and there are many others like me, and we aren't going anywhere, and we can't wait to have good stories in these games. And you know what? The developers are surely taking notice. So it seems to me, you are more the one that's part of the "DO IT MY WAY!" culture here, because I don't see myself getting worked up and blaming other people on forums about the state of a gaming genre. And I'm not joining EVE Online (probably my favorite MMO over the years) expecting good storylines, either. I am fully aware of the design philosophy of that game, and I fully accept it and enjoy it. And I look for my narrative needs elsewhere. See, many MMOs have a go at storytelling, but do a bad job of it - I want to see some MMOs do a good job of it.
And if there are developers willing to deliver that... Why is it a problem for you? Why does it make you act like the alleged "culture" you so obviously despise?
lol. Did you really just argue that plot (the element of the convergence of events in a story as well as the underlying meaning, similar to your "Heart of Darkness" example in which case it was the darkness of man etc) has nothing to do with what you said before?
Sadly, over the years, gamers that want crack addict constant injections have eroded the basis of reasonable MMO worlds (WoW is the perfect example here, really, it basically follows the trend EXACTLY) in an attempt at that pixie dust high. There ARE no games for people like me. There're so many for people like you and yet you still bitch and try to change other people's designs to have "EPICZ OVERLYING PLOTLINES SO COOOOL".
EVE Online has some of the most epic storylines ever told in a game. It has wars between corporations over resources and the ability to change the nature of the galaxy. It has Goon Squad's war against much larger, more established Corps using hilariously underpowered ships in a war of attrition.
It has real people doing real things in a virtual world. THIS is epic. Not some fucking bullshit cutscene where some cliched turd gets killed off.
It may not have good STORYTELLING (that's a matter left up to individual writers), but it certainly has amazing STORIES.
Why are you trying to change this thread to suit your definitions? We all know what the OP is talking about, why don't you?
Here's my take on things. In MMOs, you're putting yourself in the game. it's not that fact that the same experiences are shared, it's the type of experiences. For instance, if I'm told to kill six wild boars for meat, or whatever, then it's believable that other people would be doing the same thing. However, when it comes to amazing, once-in-a-lifetime events, the fact that everyone else has the same adventure takes away some of its luster. Now, why I think it's different in Final Fantasy is because those events were happening to those characters and only those characters. It's just like if you hear an incredible story in the news, no matter how many people hear about it, it's still amazing. However, if that event were to actually happen to everyone then it would cease to be amazing. Does that make sense?
You're absolutely right; if NPCs stayed dead, or any of the effects of your quest didn't suddenly undo itself so that the next person can partake, then yes, it would be much more immersive. My issue with the stories that games like WoW provide is that they try to make you feel unique, where you're really just a part of something much larger than yourself. If the world doesn't change with the actions of the players, then there's really no story. Like when you down a raid boss, there could be some backstory about how evil it is and what an accomplishment it was to defeat it, but at the end of the day, absolutely nothing has changed. You can go right back and defeat the great evil, over and over and over. Or some other quest, where you save a burning village, then you get to watch other people save the same village from the same fire. It tears down the thrill that it has attempted to create.
Again, this is simply my opinion. I'm not disparaging anyone whom enjoys the quests or story that MMOs have to offer. I'm not looking for a vicious debate over how things should be done. I'm just curious about other people's views, and sharing mine.
I really hope that it pans out for GW2, but I'm not holding my breath. ANet are definitely being very ambitious. With the way Bioware has been going in the recent few games, I don't hold much hope anymore for SWToR.
I guess part of my burn-out for the extremely architectured storylines is that they've become so hand-holding recently. For example, if you finish a bunch of quests in one quest hub, they immediately give you a quest to go find the next quest hub. If you wander around the area, you don't uncover neat things that can give you new quests for example. You have to go the route intended for you in the game.
Again, old DAoC was incredibly immersive even with the few quests it had,outside of the tasks (a more appropriate name for what many games call quests). They weren't hand-holding though, as in where you planned to go next was up to you rather than the game company telling you where you had to go.
And much to EQ2's credit, you get exploration quests that you have to explore to even start and tons of interactive objects within the game world for those who are paying attention.
If you look at BG1 and BG2, partly what made them so successful was that each storyline was unique and interesting. You had to uncover some parts by going through the story. For example, the red-clad nobleman who hires the party in an inn in BG2 that turns out to be an extremely evil red dragon. Or the circus tent incident where a vengeful gnome illusionist is holding innocent people (made out to look like orcs and ogres) because they laughed when he screwed up a magic trick.
Why can't the writing in MMOs be more like that and not 'go find me ten shrubberies, ni!'? It's very rare to come across a quest or story in an MMO where there is an about-face like old Bioware used to put in their games. Wouldn't that already be a much more interesting story?
I also didn't get much of a sense of being an adventurer in many of the more recent MMOs. That's another thing that is lacking.
Though I felt 50-50 about GW1 in that there are many things I like about it but in almost equal measure I don't like about it, at least I got the sense of being a real adventurer. It also had some of the best mob AI bar none, especially from its second expac on.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
I think the issue is that many single-player RPGs (especially BioWare RPGs) have attempted to MMO themselves whilst MMOs have been trying to become single-player games. So you get singleplayer games with stupid fetch quests and you get MMOs failing at giving epic quests and just giving us shitty fetch quests.
I guess one would start asking here, what can be done differently to enhance story-telling in MMOs? I prefer simpler to more complex. This is a bit long of a post, but it's just me throwing some ideas out here.
Phasing, for example, is one thing I probably would not use if I were to make my dream MMO. It brings in just as many problems as it attempts to 'solve'. One of the good things I can say about LotRO is that it divides players up based on how far you have gotten in your epic quest at least at the first few levels. I think using instancing rather than phasing is better for this, but with the caveat that players can go back to earlier instances if they're grouped up with people on a different stage of the quest.
Quests? To me a quest is a long-winded story that is difficult and takes time to complete. Quests in Dungeons and Dragons were never trivial. Most of the trivial 'go kill me 10 boars' are not quests.
I would call them tasks and make them more like accepting a task, or job, or a commission. For example, listening to rumours in a tavern you might hear that the local butcher is having trouble getting enough meat in from nearby farmers (perhaps because there is a problem with bandits blocking roads and therefore compromising supplies getting in and out). A player could then go to the butcher and get a commission to hunt some boar in the local forest to resupply the village and for every meat you bring him, you get a certain amount of xp and money. I think that would be nicer than just having a quest NPC say, go get me 10 boar meat. The sorts of jobs players can get could even vary: perhaps one player might be commissioned to hunt some boars for meat but perhaps another player has been commissioned to trap squirrels for pelts.
Things like job boards, rumours of passing NPCs, etc could be used to a more immersive effect to get the trivial tasks. And like in DAoC and EQ2, perhaps they could be entirely voluntary i.e. a player won't hurt himself advancement-wise if he doesn't do them. DAoC has the minitasks and bounty items, and EQ2 has writs. You don't have to do any of them to get to max level, but you get a little extra if you do.
In the same vein, I would not have a 'quest' where you're asked to diminish the population of local enemies, let's say bandits and then get asked to kill 15 bandits that repop within a minute. I would do it differently. Firstly, I'd do it through a bounty or wanted poster and offer money, xp, etc to the players for bringing in each bandit insignia, for example.
Quests on the other hand should be more involved. A great example would be the mayor of an undead plagued town hiring adventurers to go find out where the undead are coming from. Perhaps there is an entire crypt dungeon that needs to be gone through or some other way of conveying evidence that will lead to a more elaborate story. Rather than ending the story by killing the Archlich who would reappear within 5 minutes, perhaps it could be random sub-bosses with a different name, set of properties, etc and that the Archlich, like many of D&D's most infamous villains, can actually never be killed permanently (or perhaps you can just destroy the physical manifestation of the Archlich but because you can't find his phylactery it's only temporary).
Other story-telling elements that haven't been used in MMOs that could be interesting: ambushes of players/groups. This could be done either out in the wild or within a city. Let's say you've hunted tons of pirates, well maybe they get so pissed off at you they hire assassins to go after you.. Things like that.
Lastly, I think that games should provide the means to not have any storyline at all for given areas or at least make it so that players can choose to just sit and camp something like in EQ1, DAoC, etc if they want to and not severely hurt their abilities to advance.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Well, I am not doing that at all. My point (which, to sum up, is that many people who love stories will not be satisfied with convergent gameplay as story content and that it's only natural) is vital to a conversation like this. Given that the OP mentions developers trying "to tailor a series of personalized events around me", I'd say he means more or less the same thing with me when talking about stories.
So yeah, on to why crafted, personalized, narrated stories? Here's my take on it:
Think of the real world. There's amazing stuff happening all the time. So some people could say (and some do, actually) that there are enough "stories" in life, why would anyone ever want to go and read artificial, manipulative ones we call novels? Or why would we want to go see movies which are not documentaries? Because we're not looking to just "witness" stuff, we're looking to be manipulated, narrated to, and maybe even temporarily coaxed into looking at imaginary events like they were real events - because that's an archaic, playful form of communication which works on a basic level: In its compact, well-honed way, it helps us relate to the world and other people better.
It's interesting to note that there are many many non-narrative film proponents who think cinema having story, especially dramatical structure, makes it too much like theater, and cinema should stay away from story content to really have its own character as an artform. In the end, though, most media with the potential to tell stories end up telling them. And a lot of them. That, I think, is remarkable.
When I see something amazing happening in a game like EVE or Ultima Online, it surprises or even awes me that "this stuff really happened, that it's possible in the game's limited-by-rules universe". For comparison, it feels a bit like witnessing a real event in the real world unfold, it's not at all like going through a narrative. The two experiences are wholly different to me. The former does not have the manipulative pacing, the emotional communication, the perspective that a novel does. To me, that perspective lends extra value and power to a medium. So if I can get it, in a well-crafted form and not a lazy afterthought, it does constitute a separate "good gameplay" experience to me.
Ultimately, your argument breaks down on it's initial premise. Nothing about these stories is personalised. They are as cut and dry as any other story in any other medium. As soon as someone crafts a story, they make it less about the player and more about the developer forcing their vision onto the player.
The only way a story can be crafted, personalised and narrated is by the player writing that story themselves. As soon as you do a breadcrumb trail of "follow this quest!", you've taken away any individual personalisation of the story. The story is going to be the same when every player comes through it, it's not made for the player, it's made for the general public.
In order for a story to have real meaning, the player must craft it himself.
THIS is why people hate "story-based" games. The story is meaningless cliché.
That's why I was thinking it would be cool to have some basic mechanisms (like job boards or listening to rumours in a tavern for eg.) to get the tasks rather than calling them quests, and have far fewer tasks and quests in a game than there are currently in things like AoC, WoW, WAR, etc.
If developers had a lighter touch, people could actually make their own stories more often. A great example is EVE where players write fiction and even roleplay in many instances. All of the things going on are player-made: massive wars, trade wars, intrigues, etc. CCP only puts in the architecture and has a very light presence with the inclusion of PvE missions.
In DAoC, there is no real personalized story. In pre-NGE SWG, there was no personalized story. There were still a few quests here and there, but nothing that was extremely heroic or that fit into an over-arching scripted storyline like there are in WoW nowadays.
However, if you have absolutely NO story made up from quests, a lot of players get turned off of the game for the very opposite reason. They can't figure out what to do and complain that there is nothing worthwhile doing in the game. I do think that's why EQ1, AO, and DAoC, though 'popular' for the days, where never mainstream like WoW is today.
In other words, there seems to be two populations of players: those who enjoy highly architectured stories where they're made to feel like they're going through a movie, and those who prefer a lighter approach to story-telling and to be able to choose their own destiny more. I'd dare say that most people like on-rails experiences just from the demographics of how many people play those games.
I've burnt out on many games that fall in the first category, so I'm not entirely in that population. GW1, WoW, AoC, LotRO... I've burn out on those time and time again. I guess I fall almost squarely in the latter population, since EVE is the MMO I've subscribed longest to out of everything. However, I'm not 100% in it, since I enjoy EQ2 very much, but then I can stop questing and just run around exploring/killing stuff while harvesting if I want to, and I still get a good rate of xp while completing my own objectives.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
This right here is probably one of my main complaints about story-driven games like WoW. You can't just stop and have other stuff to do. Either you're on board with the progression that the game wants, or you're not and have nothing to do.
That's some historic context to story/quests in MMOs. I've not played MMO that long tbh so that's a good read here for me : )
Themepark MMOs seem to have all the investment and polish atm in the industry and it's ridiculously easy for them to churn out inumberably beautiful landscapes and awesome looking worlds and creations; I'm still SHOCKED there are players left who "ooh & argh!" over a new mmo announcement and/or fly-over video of a new world on a new shiny engine! It's great but behind glass is all I think at that stage/demonstration.
When you play you find immediately: 1) Card-board thinness to the world's interactions with you and 2) to the mobs/npc's interactions with you equally lacking depth.
DEs are supposed to sort out 1) and Personal Story (PS) I am expecting will sort out 2) limitations imposed by AI giving you choices and depth of feeling and narrative to pursue and explore the world and listen and learn about.
That's a really brief summary of why PS has me very excited for themepark mmos.
The REAL problem with a lot of MMOs is the hand-holding as you say but themepark mmos are all about a guided experience. Sandbox is the only place I'd really expect to find something where players can create/interact and develop their own meaning in game terms. At least a good ripping yarn in an MMO will add to the combat polish etc of a themepark and it's shiny graphics, even if it is by the writing team/lore team (let's hope they are pros!).
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I have the same complaint as you do. The sad thing is, it didn't used to be that way. I remember distinctively being able to go out and explore, killing mobs along the way, (perhaps on my way to a quest hee hee) in Vanilla WoW and making a decent amount of xp. Now it's impossible with the revamped areas to go out at explore because so many quest hubs have been seeded in, even if they only offer 1 or 2 quests. Everything you see now in a zone has to do with the storyline.
That's not to say that it isn't entertaining to see the revamped areas once, but the problem is what happens after? The replayability in my opinion sort of sucks in Cata, even pre-level 60.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Very well-said. I especially like how you say the world is behind glass in the on-rails approach.
There seem to be two kinds of themepark games though.
One variety is barely a themepark and almost a sandbox in the sense that it might have zones that are level-based, and a few quests here and there, but there are no in-game indications where to go next after you've out-leveled the area. You either ask a fellow player (or go to a third party website if you're really stumped), or you go and explore. EQ1, AO, and DAoC fit into this category. The themepark tag was given to them because their gameworld was loosely structured on level ranges and a lot of players associate levels with themeparks automatically in opposition to some other games that were out at the time that fit in the sandbox variety, namely UO. You can come up with your own stories and do your own thing in these older games, no doubt about it.
The second variety is completely storyline-based, on-rails, and the player is always told where to go next. I won't describe this in anymore detail you already know the rest
Pretty much everything to be released after EQ2 has been like this, even VG where there are tons of quests (though you can play that in a less quest-heavy way... I'll give it that).
I don't know what games you've played and I don't know how much Flippy Darkpaw, the EQ1 Progression server, is like the EQ I played back in 2001, but if you tried it, you'd see immediately the differences between an EQ1 themepark and a WoW themepark (or AoC, WAR, etc.). Tons of forum posters repeat ad nauseum that WoW is an EQ clone, but not really in my opinion.
My two centimes is that it's not really themeparks in general that are the problem, it's the modern incarnation of themeparks that is.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
38 studios is taking the approach of making your own story and bleeding it into the world. I believe GH2 is also attempting the same thing. Story is essentially the background lore in an mmo.
What people don't realize is that when you play an mmorpg, you're playing someone elses vision, their IP. Not yours. It's like a movie. Your following someone elses script and you're just playing a role in it. I think the best way to implement a story is to have a mainplot in which has a beginning, middle and end. And let the players as a server freely influence the world and choose the different paths to the story. Sort of like a huge choose your own story adventure book deal. I think this could only be successful if the mmo was hosted on a single shard server.