I disagree. Not every protagonist needs to be linked to the player; they can attempt to be, of course, as is the case with many role-playing games (and even there the player can deliberately opt to play a character who differs from themselves), but keeping the player and the character distinctly separate from each other can be used to great effect as well. I have rarely encountered a player character whom I have despised more than Captain Martin Walker from Spec Ops: The Line, but that's just as well because that's what the game set off to do straight off the, uh, line.

After all these years, I can still remember the story in Planescape: Torment. Loved the virtuous story of Ultima IV. Heroes tales in Baldurs Gate. I've even made my own stories playing games like Civilization or Heroes of M&M. Kinda silly I know but I like having a purpose and something to fight for in those games.
Doesn't matter how the story is told...as long as it is told in one way or another to be compatible with the gameplay. Hope it makes sense.

I think it's probably closely related with who you are in the game. If the character you're playing obviously has a fixed (and interesting) personality, I don't have a problem with linearity and restricted choice. Such is the case in most point-and-click adventures (even those can overdo it though; I don't really enjoy the longwinded dialogues in The Longest Journey or Richard and Alice for example, where you just sit there for minutes doing nothing but waiting for the pre-scripted scenes to end). It also works in RPGs with a strong pre-defined main character. It doesn't work if you pretend that the players can be whoever they like to be (like in NWN).

Maybe for me it comes down to this:

1. If the story is an important part of the game, I want it to revolve around my character and that means either (a) the story really adapts to my character and gives me the choices I want, or (b) my character has a fixed personality and history and part of the story and gameplay is to dicover it and get to know the man or woman who I control in the game.

2. If the story is not an important part of the game or does not revolve around my character, I want the option to discover it on my own or ignore it and not have a part in it. I don't want my character to be a faceless stand-in forced to witness other people's story without personal involvement and with words put into his or her mouth.

First I have to say that to me a story in game is usually like the music in a game. If it is good and well integrated to the game, it can definitely make it a much more pleasant experience, but I could possibly also do without, if needed. I think that's a very good point. So if it is merely a linear story embedded to a game, two things spring to my mind:

- Would it be better if I was experiencing the story in a movie format instead? Why do I have to play through a game to experience the story, what is the benefit?

- Would I still consider the story good, if it wasn't in a game format? Or am I giving to story automatically extra points just because it is in a game?

That said, I guess even a mediocre linear story can enhance a game. I liked the stories in e.g. Starcraft/Brood War and Monkey Island 2 even though they were quite linear, and maybe not _that_ original or surprising.

Even if the game offers several story branches or endings depending on your gaming choices, to me there's not necessarily benefit to them being in game format, instead of simply seeing the alternative endings in e.g. DVD extras. For instance yesterday when I finished Spec Ops: The Line, I simply replayed the last two chapters as many times as it took to see all different endings. I wasn't satisfied with seeing only one of them (based on my choices in the end of the game), if I knew there are alternative endings.

But I take another example from the same game where it being a game was probably a benefit:

*** SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Don't read further if you haven't played Spec Ops: The Line yet! SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ****
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So there was this scene where the "antagonist" tells you that you have to shoot one of the two criminals, otherwise his snipers will kill both. So either you will act as the jury, judge and executioner for one of them, or because of you both will die. Same kind of story element as in "Sophie's Choice" where the nazis tell the mother of two children to choose which of her two kids they'll kill, otherwise they'll kill both.

Naturally I tried my best to save them both: tried to shoot the ropes from which they were hanging so that they could run to safety, or attack the snipers instantly before they could kill them, etc. But after umpteen retries I concluded there was no way to save them both, but I still felt better that at least I had tried to save them, even if it ended up in both of them dying.

However, as far as I could tell, in the end it was revealed that you had been hallucinating the whole scene, the two hanging characters you were trying to "save" were already corpses and it was all in your own head anyway (or then I misunderstood the meaning of the ending). That kinda made we feel "Wow, thinking how much effort I used trying to save them both, and it was all in vain!". Maybe it felt more personal because it was me who had been trying to save them, several times.

Not sure if I had tried to save them anyway, even if I knew it was just a hallucination. Just to see if the game even considered that as a possibility.

(That story element reminded me of some British TV series I saw a long time ago where some antiterrorist agent was trying to keep some important old man alive from terrorist attacks so that he can make it to some meeting etc., something to do with world peace and such. He is able to keep him safe from the terrorist, losing many of his friends in the process... but then at the very end the damn old man gets a heart attack and dies anyway. :))
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*** SPOILER END ***

Well, it can be difficult to separate a character from the player. After all, you control him for the entire duration of the game. Having him be something you don't like might as well be a good enough reason to stop playing the game. (And question whether this game might have actually been better as a movie. It doesn't help that Spec Ops: The Line is influenced by the movie Apocalypse Now.)

In the end, characterization is the key. I don't expect to play a wimpy Judge Dredd. But if my main character is a stealthy bastard, I would find it extremely stupid of the game if he suddenly (in the cutscenes) behaved anything other than a stealthy bastard.

Maybe it's just me, but I invariably play games with the mindset that it's not my story, but that of the character(s), whether or not they bear similarity to me on any level, though some level of intimacy with the character(s) may be achieved. This is true even on tabletop RPG's, where my characters naturally share some personality traits with me (being an antisocial introvert, I couldn't really play the party spokesperson) and their connection to me is inherently very personal, but still incomplete (one of my characters is something of a racist, which I'm not).

Just like male players playing female characters, eh? :P

Best storytelling ive witnessed in a long time was the Riddick games... They sucked me in and didnt let go until the credits rolled... Bioshock was alright but as for story i didnt want to see "whats next" it was more of the same...

Portal 2 had a suck you in effect as well, always curious about whats next... and then there is Heavy Rain, that was not a game really... Metro 2033 was yet another i could not put down, and i recommend everyone play. The newer Fallouts: 3 had no hold on me, much like Bioshock but New Vegas had me coming back night after night just to see how the story evolved.

When a game puts action and adventure before the story it loses something... This is the case of Guerrilla vs Armageddon in the Red Faction universe... story should be paramount to keep the player invested.

Actually, that's precisely the issue with Bioshock Infinite - the story is not good as a complement to the gameplay, the game is good because of its story. I will even dare to say that the game is good despite its gameplay, well FPS gameplay anyway, exploration in it is great. But the FPS gameplay... BI tries to convey a certain experience, and this experience is so powerful that it works even in spite of what's happening. But what's happening is that you're shooting waves upon waves of people, literally in numbers that would probably depopulate half a district from your actions alone. And that just doesn't go well with this intimate story that Elizabeth and Booker share (it's not a love story thankfully, if anyone god worried there). You know, it's 'Oh yeah, this was a really great moment', and right after that it's 'Oh, 20 more men are attacking me, gotta shoot them all'.

Thing is, if this story was told via any other media - which it could be - there would not be the connection you make to the characters via initiating some parts of dialogue by yourself, usually trough exploration. Such a shame they didn't go further in this aspect.

!!!!!!!!! [Slight spoiler for both Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite] !!!!!!!!


I agree that it's more interesting if your gameplay choices affect both gameplay and story as you go along like Dishonored but it also had that typical polar opposites of good and evil choices so I would rather enjoy the idea of a complex world with mostly grey areas as well but I understand they're on a budget and have to focus on what they think they can deliver so I digress, it was good enough. I never finished Bioshock Infinite as I'm rather tired of FPS at the moment, the world however seemed quite interesting aside from the damn preaching by a certain character.

I would also lke to see a game with Alpha Prootocol conversation's system and revolve around it. To me in Alpha Protocol the conversations are the gameplay!

As much as like actions having an effect in dishonored I do miss conversation choices.

Dream game wise would probably be Obsidian (Witcher games are good with the choices as well but the quality of the writing isn't quite as good which I think it is due to the fact that the Witcher games O played translated into English) working on the narrative and choices while Arkhaine doing the level design and gameplay choices.

I would also love to be able to skip through some of the combat in some RPGs by pressing spacebar... Sometimes the combat is such pointless filler until the next conversation.

if felt the same, cared more about dishonored then bioshock, i guess because we had to choice in dishonored to make things rite then in bioshock, same reason i loved saving innocent people in assassin creed 1 or arkham city, gave you a feel that you were doing something and bringing change

This is the key sentence. If Witcher and Mass Effect integrated story poorly, then yes it would be intrusive. IMO it's not because those games balance gameplay/combat and dialog quite well. In the case of Mass Effect 1 and Witcher 2, I'd say they do it damn near perfectly. But they are story driven, dialog heavy games, and that's not for everyone.

Dishonored had terrific atmosphere and an overall decent story, but it's not a story driven game at all really. It was there for setting and not much else. I can't find myself reading more into it than that, especially since Corvo was practically non-existant or blank slate with virtually no development. He was hardly even there in a way. I suppose some will call this ambient story telling but that quickly becomes a subjective measure. There's been a recent call from critics who, after playing Dark Souls, think this is the way story should be told in games as it's non-intrusive. I agree it's one way, but reading dialog is another, especially when the story changes to your decisions. Then it can be considered gameplay.

This isn't completely true In alpha protocol it can make a difference if you choose to kill the enemies in the game or not. Also, not being seen can make some slight differences in the narrative. I felt having more of a choice in AP's linear levels then most of the open world 3d games I played besides maybe Fallout New Vegas and a few others.I also felt the conversations were the core gameplay while the levels themselves were fluff put in to make the game last longer. I myself would like a game that would just be AP style conversations.

I found AP to be one of the best games though .even if i isn't as good with the filler of combat and stealth as other games it is much better with what to me is the core of the gameplay- the conversations.

But I always been more of a Bioware/Obsidian fan of those type of games compared to say Elder Scrolls.