Quite often, an indie game throws together some common gameplay, like roguelike shooter patterns, with little to explain it. eg, “You’re here to explore for treasure!” Other times, even AAA games go this route, assuming most players won’t care about the base story premise.
But there seems to be a significant contrast to well-developed worlds; like seeing the progressive cruelty of the Nazis in Wolfenstein before you start stabbing them, or seeing the Gommage in Expedition 33 before heading out to fight nevrons. Even more eldritch action-oriented games like DOOM benefited from establishing a “mood” of the Slayer being angry at demons and anyone who ignored warnings of them using just a few quick cutscenes.
This can be a bit of divergence from a game being “story-focused” or building up detailed lore. Some such games are often bad at motivation because the “story” is so confusing to players, most would just admit “I’m just going wherever bosses are to advance the story.” Some very dialogue-heavy games don’t necessarily captivate players on this level, since motivation can often be very simple. It goes back to the age-old strategy of arcade Donkey Kong; having 10 seconds at the beginning of the game where DK captures a princess who calls for help. The early version of the game likely didn’t even have that, and the designer felt motivation was missing. (That decision spawned its own issue, the Damsel in Distress trope, but that’s another topic)
As more conceptual ideas, and especially more perpetual live-service games, become more popular, I see this element of gaming going missing at all ranks of game development - which is a shame, because I think when written creatively, there are ways to set up player motivation through relatively few voice lines and short cutscenes; something going beyond “You are an amnesiac! This voice is telling you where to go. Don’t die to The Corporation!!”
To drive discussion: What are some games you bounced off of, that you think may have been because they were missing motivation? What games found you putting up with a mediocre gameplay experience because you were invested in the given story turnout?
It depends greatly on the game. For a shooter I probably just want to jump in for a little while and blast things. A lengthy intro will just be annoying.
Even forced tutorials are annoying like that. I like when games give me the option to skip, and then to come crawling back to the tutorial when I clearly should have done it anyway.
I think games that let you pick your own style and pace work best for me. Open world games, for example, where I can go discover the story for myself, but it’s just there in the background otherwise. I’m ok with some hints though, like overhearing NPC conversations or finding random notes.
Even something we simple as Portal works. You’re solving puzzles, but you can discover the story behind it by looking for more clues. Half life, too, is really light on telling you what’s going on until you play through and discover more. But you could also just play it through without paying any attention to the story part.
I don’t think I’ve bounced off a game because it was lacking a story, but I’ve definitely given up on games because there was too much fuss to get going. I have little tolerance for long unskippable cut scenes and dialogue as well.
I have quit games I just couldn’t figure out or enjoy without taking a long time to learn how it works before even getting started. I like to learn things gradually.
Don’t get me wrong: a good story that is revealed over time to be does add a lot to the game. I just want to feel like I’m paying a game, not watching a movie or reading a book