For stories in RPGs I prefer:

[anvi]

Go

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

I like a basic story that grabs you and has some twists and turns along the way. It doesn't have to be super deep but it should be good enough to get me interested in it.

 

[Valky]

: reading a book instead.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

It doesn't matter as long as the game features universal character death. I have 0 problems with a character being boring, stupid, bad, a cuck like Fluent etc. As long as I can make my own fun by shooting them in the face and desecrating their remains for fun and profit.

 

[S.torch]

Interesting and extensive stories.

 

[Shaewaroz]

Stories with C&C.

 

[smaug]

: reading a book instead.

Un-Ironically agree.

 

[AlsGaming]

An interesting story is always preferable. The gameplay is more enjoyable when there's good reasons for your character having to go wherever and why the big evil final boss has to be stopped.

 

[SniperHF]

Some middle ground between 1 and 2. To use an obvious example, I don't think Fallout's story is particularly deep but it's more interesting than the phrase "simple story" conveys. Baldur's gate 1 and 2 are similar. Deus Ex maybe a little deeper and gets a little philosophical. But it's not say Planescape where you're digging through paragraphs of stuff where there's usually a key line or two in there. The other games would just give you that line and maybe a few others for flavor.


To me the difference between that middle ground and the "Deep interesting stories." option is how much emphasis is on NPC character development. In something like the previous examples, the stories are PUNCHY. You could even say middlebrow. You'll get some character development for the PC if it's a defined character, and maybe 1 or 2 antagonists and some followers. But most characters you meet don't have some lengthy backstory to dig through 3 paragraphs in.

Souffle's are nice once in a while but I usually prefer a good steak compared to option 1, or to the cheeseburger that is option 2. But all can be good at times.

 

[Latro]

I have no preference, both deep and simple styles can suck if the writing/story sucks. I loved Deadly Premonition though the gameplay was garbage, and I love games with no plot at all.

 

[Butter]

If you can't do Planescape Torment, don't try. There's nothing worse than a self-important writer bloviating for half a million words of insubstantial crap. Fallout is actually the premier example of how to tell an RPG story, and I reckon a lot of writers could match it if they abandoned the need to aggrandize themselves with the biggest plot since Lord of the Rings.

 

[S.torch]

: reading a book instead.

Un-Ironically agree.

Role-playing games were created in books.

 

[Valky]

Manuals aren't stories.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

RPG writers should be kept on tight wordcount budgets for nearly all content.

 

[smaug]

: reading a book instead.

Un-Ironically agree.

Role-playing games were created in books.

False, RPGs came from table-top war games.

 

[S.torch]

Manuals aren't stories.

But they're books. And although manuals are not entirely made up of stories, they are a vital part of them. All those Codex favorite games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale are based on the stories written in different manuals.

 

[Fedora Master]

"Deep" mostly just means liberal bullshit a la Numanuma.

 

[Harry Easter]

A simple plot can be deep enough, I saw this with Dragon Quest VIII and Ys: Seven. The plot there is simple, but the theme in both games is strong enough, to tell a story about something. In the case of Ys: Seven the devs also let some things open for interpretation in not telling it all. The Ys-games in general are very good at that.

Divinity: Original Sin 2 is in my book also a good example for a deep story, that also combines its plot through one big theme: power. It's about power, how to use it, how it can consume you and how unfit you maybe are to use it. Every important character reflects that and it is implemented in the game. I really think if you can implement your theme in the game, you can also compensate for pacing issues (the second act in D:OS2 was too big and you could see that the third act wasn't nearly finished in the original version).

Complexity is nice, but I don't think there's nothing wrong about a simple premise. The plot of Dragon Age: Origins could have been nice, if it didn't stop after Ostagar. My sisters and me were baffled when Wynne told us, that we were wandering around for a whole year, because it didn't feel like we achieved something. A good story has to give the player the feeling of progression. Doesn't have to be a big cinematic, an interesting document or a dialogue, something that gives you the feeling of getting stuff done, are enough.

I also think that it is important, that the player gets the feeling of progressingv through gameplay. My biggest problem with the newer Final Fantasy - games is, that the story and the gameplay feel like two different creatures. Best example XIII, the character Hope: in the game he's a whiny little coward, but in gameplay he kills legion of monsters with his boomerang, without breaking a sweat. I also think, that you have to do the beginning and the ending first, so they become connected. You can cut stuff out in the middle-part, as long as the ending feels good. For example Two Worlds II: started strong, lost steam after the university-setting and didn't make any sense in the end. You can really see, where they hadn't any money anymore. But the devs could tell complete stories, they showed that with the addon later.

 

[howlingFantods]

Less writing is better writing. Just give me a big bad to kill and I’m happy.
And if you do want your game to have some kind of narrative-focus, make it emergent or I couldn’t care less.

 

[octavius]

I like good background stories like for example Morrowind. But I loathe interactive novels like PST.
Somewhere between is Betrayal at Krondor, which I liked since it had strong game mechanics. Like Icewind Dale , the computer game actually managed to have better writing than the books it was based on.

 

[laclongquan]

Deep interesting yet captivating stories in RPG is rare and it seem mostly unneeded. The single successful story is Planescape Torment three decades ago.

Baldur's Gate story? It's as simple as it can be, with some fluff pieces.

Fallout New Vegas? Also simple. The DLCs stories are simple.

IWD stories are there just because. It's unneeded, really, as IWD2 lose the trail halfway into the game (after Ice Temple).

AND.... and writers in game industry are not that full of talents as they like to think.

So no, for purpose of safe choice and not eating shitty stories as much as possible, I vote for simple.

 

[Falksi]

Layered is always best, like a good song. Simple hooks & themes topside, but plenty of lore & depth if you choose to go looking for it. In gaming Dragon Age: Origins is a good example, in film the Star Wars OT.

In DA:O you can break it "down to big bad dragon raising big bad army from depths of earth to wipe out local civilization. goodies specially trained to stop this needed & arise". But there's way more to it, from the Mage Vs Templar element, Andraste & the Maker (great band name), the nature of dragons & them living amonst humans, romance, a naive unlikely king, a "traitorous" general, etc. etc. You can play through the game knowing only the basics, or dive into way more depth about the world right down to Dwarven Casts & Elven alienages.

Star Wars is similar. Big bad Empire ruling with an iron fist needs taking down, goodies (warrior, rogue, amazon, wizard & their pet dog - "Red Wizard needs food badly!") all band together to do so. But delve deeper and there's family, religion, politics, gangsters, spiritualism & natural law etc. etc. all there too.

 

[Alpan]

In DA:O you can break it "down to big bad dragon raising big bad army from depths of earth to wipe out local civilization. goodies specially trained to stop this needed & arise". But there's way more to it, from the Mage Vs Templar element, Andraste & the Maker (great band name), the nature of dragons & them living amonst humans, romance, a naive unlikely king, a "traitorous" general, etc. etc. You can play through the game knowing only the basics, or dive into way more depth about the world right down to Dwarven Casts & Elven alienages.

The thing I enjoy about DA lore, which is something I haven't seen in other games, is that it's all based on lost truths, lies, and differing interpretations. What is presented as fact or lore (as in the codex entries of the first game) are really just agreed-upon opinions. This wasn't a major thing in the first two games, but Inquisition really runs with the idea in some parts of it, undermining several aspects of how the world is presented in the first game.

 

[Valky]

Manuals aren't stories.

But they're books. And although manuals are not entirely made up of stories, they are a vital part of them. All those Codex favorite games like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale are based on the stories written in different manuals.

You post like a fag.

 

[Reinhardt]

Blobbers don't need "story".