Since this article contrasts Adam Maxwell's "controversial article," I'd like to comment on both articles here. I'm merely a wannabe game designer so take this for what it's worth.

A friend of mine in college always used to say "different coke for different folk." How important are writer's to your game? This depends on the following question. How important is story to your game design? This, in turn, depends on the next question. Who's your target audience? If your target audience includes me, then you should probably leave your entire story out of the game and spend more time polishing up your game mechanics. Sorry, I simply don't care about your story. On the bright side, I have plenty of friends who absolutely depend on a good story. If your target audience includes them, then you're definitely going to want to hire a good writer. In fact, I know some gamers who are willing to suffer through absolutely appalling game mechanics just to hear the next line of dialogue. It baffles me, but "different coke for different folk."

Some gamers love story. Some gamers hate story. Can a game designer appeal to both of these types of gamers? I don't think so. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the game industry right now is that too many games are designed by commitee. Usually the result is a design that tries to appeal to many types of gamers, but ultimately appeals to no one.

So who is right? Adam Maxwell or Lee Sheldon. I think they're both right.

In my short foray into teaching for a game development program and in advising colleges with curriculum, I have seen this focus on programming and art tracks. Many times, the disciplines of design, writing and production is left to trial by fire or osmosis.

I have also seen that game development programs often don't "get" how game writing can be taught.

Thanks, Lee, for enumerating all of these game writing misconceptions.

Firstly, thanks to Lee Sheldon for writing this article. I'm currently studying a game design course in London which is mainly focused on story writing. The last couple of paragraphs were a big boost in confidence for me, as I am inevitably and constantly plagued by doubts as to whether or not my vocation is even worthwhile. I have also read Sheldon's book 'Character Development and Storytelling for Games' which, in my opinion, hits the nail on the head as far as writing for games is concerned (regarding where it is, where it needs to be, and how we can get there). I think the industry is waking up to these truths and hopefully it's just a matter of time before this way of thinking trickles down into (almost) every product. I say almost because not all games need story, e.g. Tetris.

Jeremy Hayes: Your points are valid but I can't help feel that you seem to view gameplay and story as separate things, when in fact they should work in harmony. In my opinion, a good game story can also be ignored while you are playing. Take Portal, for example. You can easily rush through the game, complete the puzzles, reach the end level and complete it. Very rewarding! You could play with the sound off and never have any clue of GLaDOS' bizarre character, what she's doing, what YOU'RE doing, etc. But with these story elements included, the experience is so much richer. You have context and purpose for your actions and there is conclusion other than "you beat the game!". But the story never gets in the way, it occurs alongside the game.

So when you say that some gamers hate story, do you really mean that some gamers hate being forced to sit through hours of cutscenes while sacrificing crucial playing time?

Hi Matt,

I do believe that gameplay and story are seperate things. I also believe that it's the game designer's choice whether to integrate them. That was the main point of my other comment. Some game designers feel that story is a requirement, and some game designers feel that game mechanics alone are enough. I don't think anyone should say one design is right, and the other design is wrong.

For example: I love the recent Ninja Gaiden games from Itagaki (NGB and NG2), but my love for those games has absolutely nothing to do with the story. In fact, the story is so completely stupid that I'd probably like the game better if it didn't have a story at all. The brilliant combat mechanics are what immersed me in those games; it had nothing to do with the story. This is simply a case-in-point; not a blanket-statement that all games "should" be this way.

I sincerely hope that you reconsider your view that gameplay and story "should work in harmony." In my opinion words like "should" are very dangerous to our pedigree.

Cheers,
-Jeremy

Matt,

I wanted to say one more thing to clarify my response. Can gameplay and story work in harmony? Absolutely. I fully believe that game designers should explore this synergy. However, I also believe that game designers should explore gameplay without story. I think these two domains are orthogonal, yet equally rewarding.

Cheers,
-Jeremy

They are indeed separate things, you're right about sweeping statements like that and perhaps I phrased my point badly. What I was trying to get at was that while they may be separate things you get a far greater effect when the two work together.

What is gameplay? You could essentially say that gameplay is action (of course you can analyse it far more than that). Story is driven by action, which has cause and effect, leading to a reaction, and so on and so forth. Why do games feel the need to remove the purpose from the action? Would you have still said Ninja Gaiden would have been better without story if the story had been written enough that you fully engaged with it and genuinely cared about the characters involved? Yes, bad story can harm the experience but that doesn't mean none at all is better.

Can you elaborate on your last point (regarding why you think designers should explore gameplay without story)?

Hi Matt,

What is gameplay? To me, gameplay is anything that provides fun? What is fun? To answer that question, I like to refer people to LeBlanc's website 8KindsOfFun.com. What I love about his dissection of fun is that you can pick any game and immediately see which types of fun that game provides. I recommend doing this a few times with some of your favorite games. I suspect it will tell you things, you may not have realized, about the types of fun you prefer. You might also notice that while some games touch on all types of fun, most games are focused on a subset of 2-4 types of fun.

That's why I don't believe that you absolutely must have "narrative" fun to make a fun game. Let's take Geometry Wars Waves for an example. It was a mini-game that was embedded (literally as an arcade game) into another game called Project Gotham Racing 4. What kind of fun is it? I'd say "challenge" fun; definitely not "narrative" fun. I picked this game because I found it terribly addicting. I probably played Geometry Wars Waves for more than 100 hours, and I probably played Project Gotham Racing 4 for less than 5 hours. The mini-game probably took orders-of-magnitude less time to develop than the actual game, but I spent orders-of-magnitude more time playing the mini-game. I think there's a valuable design lesson there.

Cheers,
-Jeremy

I'm not saying you need narrative at all. You're right that many games work just as well without it. However, if you DO include it then I find it works better if it occurs alongside any action the player takes, not instead of it, e.g. the Portal examples I gave above.