Losing The Plot

Revised, expanded, trimmed, polished and now 

at least up to my own standards.

Expectations in the realm of interactive journalism are all wrong. Gameplay and presentation are valued over story-telling and it is common that a game will garner critical praise regardless of whether or not it features an engaging narrative. Nobody cared about the fact that Modern Warfare 2 & 3 were utter bollocks in the story department. Nobody gave much gravity to the fact that the entire Gears of War franchise featured characters so one-dimensional you couldn't see them from side-on*, despite their immense bulk. Nobody gives flying fishsticks that Mario, Link and Gordon Freeman frequently get voted the best videogame characters of all time, despite lacking that very thing: character. There's barely even a line of dialogue between them! They may be iconic, but great characters they are not.

At this point I should probably make it clear that games can certainly be enjoyable without a cohesive or decent story. It is absolutely fine to enjoy a game simply for the joy of collecting stars and dismembering faceless opponents. In fact, some games just try to be pure fun and they should be commended for that. Take Vanquish as a prime example: it featured some of the most insanely fast-paced and fun gameplay ever seen in a game, no exagerration. The story, on the other hand, was cheesy, cliched and wonderfully self-aware. It was about incredibly gruff, burly American super-soldiers fighting gigantic Russian robots (ocassionally in space). You even had a designated button to light a smoke. The story was meant to be rubbish and that was its strongest point. 

The thing is, if you were to compare Vanquish to Gears Of War (another 3rd-person shooter) you'd find that it also features badly conceived characters and a poor script. You'd also find that none of that was intentional. It wasn't trying be trashy, it just was. Cliff Bleszinski promised a 'bigger, better, more badass' continuation in Gears 2. What happened was everything got bigger and more badass. Not better. Players were given a treatment of massive, clumsy vehicle sequences and larger destruction, while the cliffhanger of the first game, which seemed to hint at a more sinister and mysterious plot for its sequel, was squandered. The story for the first wasn't exactly much either, but at least it felt more grounded in its own gritty reality. Gears of War 2, quite literally, lost the plot.

Now lets take a look at its Metacritic score...

93 percent. Not put off by the quality of its narrative, all critics seem to focus on the increased amounts of 'badass', basically commenting on how cool everything is, similar to the way some critics positively compare Modern Warfare 2 to a Michael Bay-style action blockbuster (which to me would mean 'all flash, no substance'). You have to scroll to the bottom of the review list to actually find critics who take into serious consideration the game's lax approach to storytelling; The folks over at Wired featured a very critical review, part of which I will quote now for you:

" I never got over the feeling that I was playing an extended Mountain Dew commercial. The characters are so uninspired you can almost predict their next response or action — usually some variation of a grim, determined assertion of their physical prowess. There’s a marked attempt to add some real emotion to the game, but it falls flat in the face of the game’s hypermasculinity. And the love story that’s been tacked on reads like teen fan fiction, right down to the wall-punching angst and eventual grim conclusion. "

Unfortunately most people were too busy shitting themselves over the chainsaw duels to worry about narrative quality. IGN even called the story 'engrossing'. Good joke.

MICHAEL BAY! EXPLOSIONS! BAYSPLOSIONS! EXPLOSIONS! 

MICHAEL BAY! BLAAAAAAARRGGHH!

An even more hilarious instance of this lapse in critical consensus, which elicited a rather large face-palm from me, was the wide-spread praise of Modern Warfare 3. They actually praised its single-player campaign; they kept on calling it 'wonderfully over-the-top', or some other assorted bull. By the time I'd scrolled to the bottom of the review list, my thumb and forefinger had become well-acquainted with the bridge of my nose. Look people, that game had not an ounce of self-awareness. If it did, it would have been released as DLC. It was not exciting; it was numbing, a bit like watching the A-Team tank scene on repeat: there's a point where it stops being entertaining and just ends up looking plain stupid.

Obviously there are many games which are rightfully praised for their storyline. Titles like Bioshock and Shadow of the Colossus received heaps of critical acclaim for their inventive and well-executed stories. That is not a problem. The problem lies with critics who praise a game for good narrative where there is none or simply flat-out ignore a games inability to engage emotionally just because it KICKS ASS!

So what's the point in the minority being vocal of the story if the overwhelming majority thinks violently insane kills and massive explosions are the be-all and end-all? The truth is, there isn't one. That's why it is imperative we place more importance on the quality of the storytelling within games. That imperative is actually becoming more apparent as games are becoming recognised as a relevant art form. Even Mr Ebert is going to have to give up the ghost soon and admit it. More purely story-driven games, such as Dear Esther and To the Moon, are now finding a larger audience amongst critics, and have become top-sellers on Steam and the like; with games like these, there is yet hope, even if most them will never achieve mainstream success. The minority will, hopefully, no longer stay the minority. Hopefully.