I’m a big fan of modern computer games. Or, rather, I’m a big fan of modern games with well-written and developed narratives and story arcs. Okay, being completely honest, although I am a fan of narrative arcs in computer games, it’s kind of in the same way that Hansel is a fan of Sting.
Nonetheless, I read a lot of articles and watch a lot of YouTube videos about narrative structure in games. And a few weeks ago I was watching an entertaining deep-dive into the problems with ‘Fallout 3’ when I was blindsided by a piece of story-writing wisdom that came out of nowhere.
To be clear, this information isn’t new. It wasn’t new to me, and I can pretty much guarantee that it won’t be new to you. But sometimes hearing the same advice — the same wisdom– from a different perspective can hit you in just the right way, at just the right time. So today I’d like to share that little bit of wisdom with you.
But first…
Narrative Games
Anyone who’s played a computer game since the days of Donkey Kong and Pac Man will have come across narrative games at some point between then and now — even if it was as simple as donning your plumber garb and rescuing the princess from the castle. But modern games — particularly roleplaying games — have stories as intricate and detailed as any Hollywood movie or (dare I say it) novel.
Not only do these games need to present a narrative that makes sense — one that includes an inciting incident, plot points, reversal, and climax — they also need to provide increasingly challenging enemies to kill and/or puzzles to solve. And, in many games, all of this needs to be accomplished in an open world environment. One where players can choose to take their characters in any direction, and complete quests and missions in the order of their choosing.
If you think that sounds difficult… Yeah. Sounds difficult to me, too. There’s a reason that games have such a huge team of people working on them, and still rarely manage to get all elements working together perfectly.
The Fallout Franchise
The original Fallout game came out all the way back in 1997. That was at least a million years ago in gaming terms. Nonetheless, many gamers will tell you that the game story (if not the graphics or controls) holds up even today. The game turned into a true franchise, with three sequels and a handful of spin-off games set in the same universe.
The universe….
The game is set in a dystopian, post-apocalyptic future full of retro-futuristic technology and settings. The series overall makes some interesting points about technology and greed and the future of humanity. There’s combat galore, but also plenty of problem-solving and the occasional opportunity for some lock-picking and computer hacking. But the game elements aren’t the most interesting things to me.
I’m here for the story.
The Man in the Room
This entire post came about because of something YouTuber Hbomberguy said when describing the story purpose of the Man in the Room at the end of both Fallout and Fallout 3. (You can watch his entire critique here.)
In describing Fallout, he talks about how the tension builds and builds through the game until you finally go to confront the enemy. You fight your way through minions until, finally, you face The Master — the leader of the enemy. As Hbomberguy explains:
Everything has been pushing you towards the moment when you have to tell the man who thinks he has the solutions to the problems you’ve been facing that he’s wrong. These are the crowning moments of Fallout. They’re the culmination of their story, their themes, and all of your character’s choices, too. … The entire game has been preparing you for this moment.
In comparison, he has a much lower opinion of Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 pits you against Colonel Autumn. Autumn has been a **** to you personally, but he doesn’t represent any major flaw in the world of Fallout 3. He isn’t the culmination of the problems you’ve seen. He just sort of turns up halfway through. He’s just a guy standing there saying, “Well, I guess it’s time for us to fight now.”
A Culmination
There’s nothing in either of those comments that is new or different. But they hit me in a completely new way.
It’s not easy to get the climax of a story right. It has to feel dramatic. There needs to be plenty of tension.There often needs to be explosions. (Fireworks count as explosions.) But, more than anything else, it needs to feel like a culmination of all the problems the character has seen throughout the story.
It should feel like every single thing that has happened during the story has been seamlessly pushing the character to that moment. Every challenge they’ve faced, and every choice they’ve made, should have been preparing them for the climax.
Because there’s nothing more disappointing than a story that ends with the protagonist facing off against some random person who seems to exist solely for the purpose of saying, “I guess it’s time for us to fight.”
How do you make sure your ending is a culmination of the story? Do you have any tips or tricks to share?
Wish you could buy this author a cup of joe?
Now, thanks to tinyCoffee and PayPal, you can!
About Jo Eberhardt
Jo Eberhardt is a writer of speculative fiction, mother to two adorable boys, and lover of words and stories. She lives in rural Queensland, Australia, and spends her non-writing time worrying that the neighbor's cows will one day succeed in sneaking into her yard and eating everything in her veggie garden.
It’s an issue for me, Jo. Because I definitely consider my protagonist’s story to be the entire trilogy (I’m drafting the second half of book 3 now). And during the climax he’s fighting a foe that has only turned up as a flesh and blood character in book 3 (he makes a cameo in book 2). Though my protagonist has been spoiling for this “big stage” fight for the entire series.
But I think (I hope) that it’ll be clear to everyone that the true antagonist is not truly just this dude who shows up in book three. He’s fighting his worst impulses, his ego (gone wild!). Another big element of the forces of antagonism is a prophecy that was imposed on him. He chose to take the accolades and power that came with being “the one.” But he turned everything to shit in the process.
And now this fight. With the dude. But the dude represents a lot (basically an imposed version of civilization itself). And I think (I hope) their fight is the culmination of everything because my protagonist doesn’t just have to face probable death. He has to choose honor. He has to embrace humility. He has to promote the best aspects for his people of a prophecy he used and previously turned to shit. And, most importantly, he has to choose true love–something he spurned along the way. And, well, probably die along with all of those choices. (Die *for* them?)
Thanks much for really getting me thinking. Good timing! I’m totally another Hansel/Sting appreciator when it comes to gaming.
Jo, I haven’t played a video game since Pac Man, what I totally related to what you said. It’s so important, but hard to remember when you’re tens of thousands of words in and hoping it all holds together.
The climax of my WIP’s first book is when the MC causes her mother, the antagonist, to realize she loves her daughter too much to kill her — even if it means risking the destruction of the world.
Hopefully it works.
So true.
Check: the stakes are just as high in the finale – honor and honesty, obsession and betrayal in conflict – and the result not a given.
I ache to write the final version of the end. So I can read it.
Write your story with the ending in mind so everything that comes before will lead to it.
In my memoir, I have the scene, the moment that everything seems to come to fruition. But, also in memoir, the moment should show enough of it that I shouldn’t have to tell the reader – “Hey, reader – this is the culmination of the entire narrative!” So, it’s a delicate line for me to walk – too subtle or too clobbery? I’d love others’ thoughts. Great post! It’s a point of reckoning across genres!