There always seems to be a consistent problem with the narrative process in videogames; the problem isn't one which the medium has inherited because of its nature, rather it is usually the fault of the developers. The problem I am talking about is over-explanation. Narratives have always showed or informed the audience of something, but narratives have also intentionally left out information as well. It seems odd then, that in the videogame industry nearly every game is keen on overexplanation. In Resident Evil, the multiple overlapping explanations for Umbrella's motives/means have all but diminished the initial integrity of the narrative. The basic plotline(s) has been tweaked more times than anyone can count simply so the developers can explain more of their story. Is all this exposition really necessary? It wasn't in the Metroid series, which is now beginning to suffer the same problems the Resident Evil series has been experiencing for so long. With every new game, new writers come up with new backstories which aren't really necessary to carry the plot forward. They're simply there for the sake of being there and serve no real purpose. Stories should be built like engines, using only things which make it more efficient; no improvement, no need. So then, how much backstory, explanation, and exposition is really necessary to carry a game forth? In a purely hypothetical situation, would it be a huge shock to thrust the player in a universe where 99% of humanity is simply gone and never offer an explanation why? Could the reasons why be left intentionally obscure for thematic reasons? Or is it better to flesh out every explanation so there's no question about where a character came from or why there's suddenly a lot less people on the planet? Is it really necessary to stuff the game so full of exposition that every shred of mystery is removed from the player's mind? I, for one, have never been a big fan of exposition. I believe a work should stand alone within itself. While I recognize the usefulness of setting up characters and plots, I don't believe in removing any mystery or suspense in the player's mind during the process. Children of Men didn't waste any time or effort walking the audience through twenty years of history to recount the events leading up to the film, so why do developers feel compelled to do so?

The problem with not providing enough backstory in story or character focused games is that the interactivity involved with computer games makes it a different medium to that of static media like print or film. The protagonist in a game is shaped not only by the writer but by the player as well. It's why story based games are so immersive; the player is experiencing the story as a active participant rather than as a passive one.

However the problem lies in that unless the lead character is a newborn then the character must have a set of knowledge about the world that they live it that the player does not share. This can mark a divide between the player and their character, say if it's a fantasy world which seems outlandish and totally new to the player but should be mundane and understandable to the character. Without providing some background information the player would not have an understanding of the basics of the fictional world that they are going to participate in.

There are ways that you can mitigate this by basing your story around a character with a lack of knowledge. That's a reason why there are so many game stories based around amensiacs, explorers to strange new lands, rookies in new fields and other fish out of water characters; both the protagonist and the player are confused about their world. However that does limit the kinds of stories you can tell in a game. I don't mind seeing a bit of backstory to explain an understanding of the protagonist to the player.

Overexplanation is certainly not a universal problem of games - there are many games which underexplain things. Although personally I think the problem of video games giving stupid explanations is worse than giving either too much or too little lol.

Yet the Warcraft series manages to create massive amounts of storyline while not losing too much integrity. In fact, the biggest inconsistencies (most recently, with the troll history) tend to be created by only one author (that is, one dude wrote both conflicting parts, but years apart in time), and require some apology and correction.

Honestly, I'm impressed with the overall ability of Blizzard to work so much text and data into a single, extraordinarily complex history. I wish more franchises were able to do this.

--

I never really understood why RE handled the stories the way they did. It's a little odd to need to deal with each game as a separate plotline unto itself.

--

It's okay to leave out a lot of the story, but only if it's uneccessary (say, PacMan, Tetris) or realistic (that is, your character has good reason not to know - being a soldier, having amnesia, being thrown into a new culture, etc).

I tend to make games that need little to no backstory. I'm not one of those ppl who have THE IDEA about a spiky kid who saves the world. I'm more activity oriented. I love stories but have the attention span of a goldfish, I don't want them in my casual games.

Come to think of it, some books don't bother with backstories. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are two examples - though they are largely childrens' books. By the second or third page of each, the story is in full swing - someone has already made it to Narnia or Oz. Much of the history is explained by later characters (the Witches, Boq, Mr. Tumnus, the Beavers), and does gain some serious depth.

In Doom 3, you spend the first minute of cut scene landing on Mars, and you're allowed to play your way through the backstory (if you care to) while making your way up to Marine HQ.

Half Life 2 almost never uses cutscenes, and the initial intro is completely unrelated to the backstory. The story is explained by other characters throughout the game.

I much prefer games that handle the story telling this way - lengthy initial cutscenes (or worse, text-laden videos or blank-video narratives) and FF-style dialogues really, really bother me. Of course, in both these cases, there is also no reason for the player to know anything - you're a soldier, or you've been placed on a random train by the G-Man.

Quote: Original post by Sulphix
...

Is all this exposition really necessary?

...

Let me approach that question from another angle. Is the backstory good?

In your RE example, the answer is no. Conflicting backstories definitely make me ask why they bothered.

On the other hand, there are probably games that really benefit from a good backstory that adds an extra dimension to the currect story, although I can't think of any now (Symphony of the Night lets you play the backstory as some Belmont or other defeating Dracula).

I believe Shadow of the Colossus had minimal backstory, and minimal explanation of the world in which you gamed. Of course it's looked at as a fine axample of storytelling.

I agree with you that excessive exposition can be a problem, especially given sunandshadow's point in another thread that most people think they can write a good story without having any particular qualifications.

Backstory isn't the problem. The problem is the method by which the backstory is exposed. There is little thought put into what should be exposed and how it should be exposed.

One game I like a lot for its mood is Shadow of the Collosus -- it has almost no backstory, but it works really well.

On the other hand, early WarCraft games were given a real sense of history and an epic quality by understanding what it was I was fighting for. However, that might have been only because of the time the game was released-- if they did the exposition now the same way as they did back then, they'd be panned.

I think ideally, there is enough backstory exposed during casual gameplay to give the player a reason to play, while also providing opportunities for learning for those players who want a deeper sense of history, either within the game or through supporting documents like the manual.

Games like Gears of War use very little backstory at all. In fact, throughout the whole game, you learn nothing of the past except that Marcus was put in jail and his father was a really good scientist. Along with Cole being a thrash-ball player. Unless you watch the narrative at the beginning start screen *which i didnt for awhile since I didnt know it was there* you wouldn tknow anything about the past. But that narrative along with Gears of War's ending does give you the feeling of *Oh my gosh I cant wait until Gears of War 2 comes out* not for the gameplay but to actually finish the story GoW started.

Since you don't know where the alien bastards came from that you're fighting, the reason they are fighting, or what happened in the 79 year war before then, it sets up the next game as being a totally story and suspense driven piece of narrative.

Pariah for the xbox and PC tells little or no backstory at all and lets the player almost specculate what exactly happens. Even after you beat it, you really have no idea how a lot of events went down.

I don't believe in holding the player in the dark about every single thing in the game-world. Just being thrust in some kind of war or fight for your life doesnt seem fun to me. At least a little backstory would be interesting enough.

It seems we've gotten off topic. Backstory is not plot flow. It may contain elements of it, but actual backstory is the passive memoir of an event. It is not currently happening in the game's storyline (unless the game is basing it's story off memories or something) but rather is an explanation of what has already happened in the story up to the current point. I think the inkling that not everything in a set story needs it's own backstory explained is a correct one. In any form of storytelling not everything is explained. There is (or should be) a constant central theme in a story. It lets the reader know where the story could be headed and maintains a sturdy focal point for the storyteller to work from. Backstory should mostly be used if it is needed to effectively further the plot of the MAIN story. Such a situation would be with a series of stories, such as Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, ect.