Yeah, as I've been saying for a while it's time for us to really consider what "story" means. Stories need only be linear in the retelling, not in the initial experience.
 

There is a good book by Lee Sheldon on this subject. It is called "Character Development and Storytelling for Games".
 

No offense, but Frayed Nights looks so generic that I think only a great story line could elevate it. I don't think it's going to have one though. What I think it will have is interesting game mechanics, which will seem clever to the player but not deep in any way. Which is fine and expected really.

Personally I think games should aspire to make people think, even to make grand statements. I'm probably in a minority though.

Here's an interesting set of links:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17531

http://kotaku.com/357273/levine-agrees-bioshocks-ending-failed
 

I often don't see why someone would *want* to tell a masterful linear story within a game. If all you want to do is tell a beautiful story in which the player's input doesn't matter... write a book, write a movie.

Similarly, I tend to be dubious when someone says they've written a novel and want to turn it into a game. If you've written a novel, you've written the wrong kind of story to begin with. You can use the novel's setting for a game that's loosely based on that environment (licensed platformers!) and you can find the 'exciting bits' of the novel to turn into interactive elements strung together by long cinematics, but you can't really play out the story without the ability to make the story do something else.

(Note - I haven't played the Witcher. My computer's outdated enough that I don't jump at new AAA games, and most of the reviews have been a bit 'eh' about it. So I can't comment on how they handled making a game out of a novel. I *think* they didn't try to base it on a specific novel but more on the property in general. Dunno.)

My basic point is that the kind of story I invent for a game is fundamentally different than the kind of story I invent for a book or fanfic. And I have experience with storytelling that is far more non-linear than Fatal Hearts. Anyone else ever done roleplay via usenet? The plot is constantly branching, and ALL the branches are happening AT THE SAME TIME, and interacting with each other. Try representing *that* in a traditional written format. :)
 

"No offense, but Frayed Nights looks so generic that I think only a great story line could elevate it."

I'm not sure I'd agree. As time goes on, I realize that I'm much more interested in character than am in story. You can take you average storyline and sum it up in three sentences - "Bad guy has plan for evil. Good guy finds out about it. Conflict ensues as Good guy tries to thwart Bad guy." There, I just summed up about every action movie out of Hollywood from the past 20 years (and probably 95% of all computer RPG plots, as well.)

So what makes one of these "storylines" stand out from another? Character.

A bad writer can take a fantastic plot, and turn it into complete garbage by introducing characters you simply don't care about. A good writer can take an average storyline, and turn it into gold by making you care about the people in the story.

Most of my current crop of favorite authors - Jim Butcher, John Scalzi, Lois Bujold, Alan Gardner, Dan Abnet - are writing stories with interesting, but not groundbreaking, plots. Their characterizations, on the other hand, are outstanding. You are drawn in to the stories, not because they storyline is stunningly original, but because you care about the characters and what's happening to them. You may or may not agree with their actions in response to the unfolding storyline... but they're at least consistent, non-trivial and engaging actions.

This doesn't just apply to the Good Guys, either. Really good stories have both Good Guys you love, and Bad Guys you love to hate. The really great stories have the Good Guys you love, but sometimes want to grab and give a shake when their flaws get in the way; Bad Guys you know you should hate, but which evoke sympathy for their state, and even respect for their choices, however rotten they might be; Good Guys that you really loathe, but grudgingly admit to the Good Guy fraternity... you get the picture.

IMHO, the success of Frayed Knights will stand much less on storyline, and more on the four characters Jay has created, and how they interact with the world around them, and how the player is going to be able to guide them as they grow and develop while the storyline plays out.
 

1. That games aren't linear is mostly a myth... Except for some RPG, games are as linear as they can be.

2. That stories must be linear is just a preconception that comes from movies and novels.

3. You can start by giving a consistent setting, interesting dialog and avoiding unnecessary cliches.

4. Stop the blah blah, I hate it when games think "story" means writing long chunks of texts every 3 minutes... long, shallow, boring text that doesn't add anything to the game. This is an evil that haunts mostly indie rpgs (I'm looking at you, Geneforge). I don't need to know every detail of the world history to feel I'm part of it.

5. Start by making an interesting linear story, and then we'll talk about interesting non-linear stories.

And about Frayed Nights, I don't think it looks generic at all, it looks interesting and I'm looking forward for (at least) a demo.
 

@Corvus: I see from your blog you got sucked into the discussion yourself. But yeah - the new medium requires a new vocabulary. I think we're stuck in something similar to the early days of cinema, when they simply put the camera in an audience chair and recorded the performance. It didn't translate well.

@ Ezequiel: I know of Lee Sheldon (have I met him at GDC?), but I haven't read his book yet. Putting it on the list.

@Anonymous: I'm not a master storyteller. So I can't pretend I'll have a "great" storyline. All I can do is present things in a different way and try and create a "different" storyline, and hope that the comedic perspective and interesting characters will interest players and encourage them to commit themselves to participation.

@Whiner: I used to play on a couple of MUSHes. Does that count? :) Not quite as crazy as what you describe though.

But even the relatively mediocre "stories" of the MUSHes were - in my mind, at least - exceptional! If only because I invested myself into them. That's easier to do in the interactivity of a game world, IMO, than the static one of linear media. That's kinda where I'm pinning my hypothesis here - that commitment and investment in the world / characters / story can act as a multiplier on the story quality in terms of player experience. Even a simple story can be wonderful that way.
 

@Jay: You know me, you can't say "story" and "game" without a single post without me having something to say about it. ;)

@Ezequiel Pozzo: At the risk of sounding like a crass spammer, I think you'd enjoy my blog and I know I'd love to have your participation in our discussions there about videogames as a storytelling medium.
 

@Jay: I had initially planned more of a rebuttal, but my thoughts were so disjointed that I found it more productive to point out the things that I essentially agreed with. As for the pessimism, I guess I was just thrown off by the "You'll Never Find a Game With a Great Story" comment. ;)

Anyone else ever done roleplay via usenet? The plot is constantly branching, and ALL the branches are happening AT THE SAME TIME, and interacting with each other. Try representing *that* in a traditional written format. :)

Excellent point, whiner. But, how do you go about representing that in a single-player game?

Start by making an interesting linear story, and then we'll talk about interesting non-linear stories.

I guess I have a tough time wrapping my brain around the concept of a true non-linear story within the context of a single-player game, at least from a programming perspective. It sounds like what we want, but I'm not sure what it really is.

You know me, you can't say "story" and "game" without a single post without me having something to say about it. ;)

I, for one, am glad you do. These are great discussions.
 

"I often don't see why someone would *want* to tell a masterful linear story within a game. If all you want to do is tell a beautiful story in which the player's input doesn't matter... write a book, write a movie. "

I often don't see why someone would want to play a game where they are responsible for creating a beautiful story. If I want to create a story I'll write a book. If I want to go along for a beautiful ride, I'll play a game.

Rubin nails it down well: "the player's role is to gradually reveal portions of a predetermined narrative." But I disagree that this is inherently contradictory with an interactive game. I don't play games under the illusion that my button presses on a controller can translate into compelling emotional experiences that are unique to me. No game will ever allow me to express my imagination as effectively as a pencil and a sheet of paper will. It will never happen and when I fire up a game, I don't expect it to. What I do expect is for the game to let me ride, temporarily, in the creator's imagination.

So why don't I just watch movies and read books? Ignoring the fact that games are another source of good stories, and I'll never turn down a good story, games provide a delay of gratification that enhances the reward. The structure of a game serializes the story, and requires effort from me to achieve the reward.