One of the biggest problems I come across in gaming is story. It's a tricky element to get right, and people are both going to want it or going to hate it. The biggest problem is that if you go for a story, you either have to keep it basic as a way to establish why the player is in the game in first place (I call this the "Call to Suspension" trick), or it becomes a core part of the game (I'd call this an "Experience", as you would have noted in a previous Wot I Fink).

There's going to be a little less opinion on what method is better this time, because as I explain later, they both have their own appropriate applications. Really, this is more to give people a general idea of how they should approach the type of story they need to write. I certainly want to go more indepth on what makes a good story, and common rookie errors and things that could improve any story.

NOTE: There are games with NO story at all. I still believe they're under Call to Suspension; they just presume you'll create your own story from the very get-go by giving you the tools you need to build a story.

Type 1: Call to Suspension

Suspension of Disbelief. Whenever you watch a movie, read a book or play a game, that's what the author wants to happen. Hell, even your dreams are based around this principle. You know the idea of the "lucid dream", where you realise you're dreaming and can go crazy? Have you ever "woken up" while playing a game seriously, and suddenly tried to mess around with the engine in crazy ways? Same ideas are at work here.

I call this the "Call to Suspension" because the principle of the story writing method is not trying to throw a player into this deep and riveting plotline in which they must follow carefully to make any sense of. The idea here is that the player is that you simply need to give a purpose to the player's actions. You're calling them, telling them that this is what you're going to be doing, and then if they like the premise they'll suspend disbelief and get lost in your world.

This is what most games do. Think Mario. Simple premise: As a mushroom-addicted plumber, save the princess from the lunatic steroid-addicted turtle. It gives you a reason to play, but after that, there's no specific plot line, no story to follow aside from going further through the acid trip and eventually getting a kiss from Princess..."Peach". That's peachy, but what about something else? Let's try something like an MMO; EVE Online. You're a spaceship. In space. Drilling rocks. Watch out for anything else that moves. Especially if they look like this.

The point of this method is that gameplay is your focus. Typically, this is where most indie developers start (See: Minecraft). The point is that you're playing a game for fun. You shouldn't need a big over-arching story to drown in. You just need to have a reason for being their, and a good set of mechanics which don't get boring fast.

Now, there are some games which are an advancement on that. EVE Online doesn't have quests. What about (my interpretation of) LEGO Universe? There's a story (something about creepy evil skeletons with a fetish for the colour purple and a bunch of barbarians with dashing good blonde hair), and then you can get quests in the game. It's the exact same principle. The overarching story (fetish skeletons v. poncy barbarians) doesn't connect with the side-quests, and in fact there's no real "way" to complete it; it's just giving you purpose to be there. And the side-quests are giving you extra stuff to do in the world, but they don't have elaborate setups where the entire family of a drug lord is now being hunted down by Jedi Jesus, who himself is on a redemption mission after setting alight a school of children clothes with nothing but tattered rags collected from a crashed spa...you get my point.

Type 2: Experience

Experience needs to be well written. Story is the core of your game. Everything needs to be fleshed out, and well. Even if the players can never find out the true story of every character and object, you must have giant scripts written of every motivation, every action, every line spoken, and hell, every time a character goes for a smoke.

The experience is just that; your gameplay is probably solid, but you're beyond gameplay. You want to tell a story using game technology as your communication device. You therefore need to think like a game designer, but craft like a sculpture artist and write like a poet while thinking like a movie director. If that didn't turn you to alcohol, then you're on your way to becoming a good story teller in gaming.

I will come back in another Wot I Fink and explain more about what makes a great gaming story. There's a lot of little intricate things that make a story work, the important one being tension. Nonetheless, what I want to say here is that this type of story in gaming requires significant more effort on the part of the Creative Director/Lead Designer/Script Writer etc. It's not something that can be tested by loading up a map on a debug version and going through a checklist. It requires hours and hours of a variety of people to run through the game, giving their thoughts on if the story is interesting or not. If the story fails, gameplay WON'T save you, unlike the other type of story writing. Even if you have the most amazing mechanics in the world, they're supposed to be the support element to the world you want to put the player in. You will be lambasted if you epic tale of the ant who couldn't walk straight fails.

The most important thing to remember about this type of story, is that the player needs to be involved, and they should have no questions about their actions, unless that's your intention. If you've ever played an RPG like Mass Effect or KotORII, you should know this well enough. Every action the player can take is given proper context, and the player has choice. Furthermore, there's plenty of foreshadowing of future events to show the developers know where they want to go with the story, and it gives players proper tension and allows them to feel like the world isn't just a static "do this because EXP". There's things going on and the player is a part of it. Of course, you don't need branching storylines, player choices or even morality systems. It's up to you how far the player interacts (compare Heavy Rain, The Walking Dead [Telltale Games], Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Fallout 3). The important question is how the story works around the player.

Conclusion

I don't want to come off and say which method is better in this Wot I Fink. I think that's a little obvious, but more importantly, it's not true, because they work for entirely different games and do entirely different things, so therefore neither is better than the other. The important point to focus on is the understanding of your medium. You need to have an advanced understand of how ideas are communicated through games, and need to consider what the most effective way to get through to your audience is. Game theory is more complex than you might appreciate at first, but by learning it, either through college, through self-teaching with books or by studying popular games, or even by talking to successful designers, you'll be able to gain the understand you need to start creating the exact type of story you need for your game. You wouldn't go back in time and kill Edison to turn off your light switch, just as you wouldn't create a giant plot for a game like Peggle.

And that's Wot I Fink.