next »

[jwk5]

I'd just added an edit to my Jade City topic and what I wrote actually got me wondering something. For the sake of laziness I'll just quote it here (and so that it doesn't wind up hijacking the topic there):

I should also note that I am a "setting and characters first" kind of gamer. I will play through some pretty crappy fighting games if I really like the characters, backgrounds, etc. for example. I am all about the game worlds and their inhabitants. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy good game play (and definitely prefer it) but the game play is only half of what makes the experience for me. So perhaps the notion of me focusing on story and characters first may seem somewhat "wrong" the fact is good game play is good game play, regardless if it came before or after the story. If you can create a good story to suit game play you can create good game play to suit a story.

A lot of people (not necessarily referring to posters in that topic) seem to state that you should always create the game play first and then wrap the story around it but is it necessarily bad to create a story first and wrap the game play around it? I disagree with the idea that games are not a good story telling media (while it may vary depending on your point of view, I think Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Dragon Age: Origins are great examples how a great deal of story can be put into a game while still maintaining good game play).

It's true you will generally have to cut away parts of a story that interfere with game play and generally have to leave out many details but in a good RPG wouldn't it be equally important to cut away game play that conflicts with the story? A good example is fetch quests and the age old "rats in the basement" type quests. They are there to provide you with more game play (level gains, items, etc.) but at the same time they are generally boring and feel out of place. I mean why is it that heroes constantly detour from their quest to save the world just to go do mundane tasks for random strangers?

Do you think the game play should always come first or do you think good game play can be created around a story that came first?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the idea kind of parallels with the general makeup of "art games". Often you have sparse game play built around some expression or idea. I don't necessarily care for art games myself (I'll take bad game play over little to no game play any day) but I do think it is interesting how they are put together.

[Gimym TILBERT]

Hint: They have the EXACT same structure aside from linearity and interactivity. THey both have character pursuing goal across obstacle, they both set a stake and have consequence for winning/failure. Story only tend to be more complex by having many substory interrelated. Gameplay are just one very simple story with lot of padding.

I made absolutly no difference aside thinking about player interface.

[i wanna be the guy]

I think the genre of game you're making has a big impact on whether or not gameplay or story should come first
I personally prefer story over gameplay, but there's other games that revolve around mindless violence or over-the-top gameplay that are still fun for the simple reason that you can connect to the world in a different way than you can in a game that revolves tightly around a story

One of the more interesting games I've played lately, Just Cause 2, is a giant sandbox games that literally revolves around causing chaos in the most over-the-top ways possible (you have a grapple hook that hooks onto ANYTHING, the access to tons of civilian and military vehicles, and a parachute for those much needed escapes from a stealth jet that you just punched the pilot out of after grappling onto its left wing and moving to the cockpit)
The story is almost nonexistent: You are a government agent sent to the fictional southeast Asian country of Panau to overthrow the dictator and find out why your mentor and CO went AWOL. You must befriend the 3 battling gangs who control the country in order to gain access to information regarding the whereabouts of your CO and in order to cause enough chaos to gain the attention of the dictator.

you get missions from the gang leaders that involve blowing things up, breaking up a convoy transporting a friendly, destroying military bases, and other completely over the top tasks. Because there's SO MUCH to do in this game (there's hundreds of non-storyline missions given to you by the factions/gangs, and there's around a hundred or so locations around the country to discover and cause chaos in and a handful of easter eggs), the fact that the story is so shallow and the voice acting is so hilariously bad can be forgiven.
The game has other things to help it stay interesting.



e:

So I guess, it doesn't really matter whether you're starting out with the story or the gameplay. The real problem is getting a way to make both of them work together in such a way that even the most mundane tasks (like the 'rats in the basement' tasks you mentioned) DON'T feel boring, or if you're unable to make them feel boring, at least don't make them feel out of place

[mirosurabu]

I'm pretty sure it's not rare for developers to cut some gameplay segments for the sake of the story, but such tweaks are minimal in majority of games. The chronology doesn't really matter; what really matters is which content form is the dominant one.

In most games (mainstream or indie), the dominant aspect is gameplay and story is just there to provide context and reward system, and to enhance overall experience.

The problem with this approach is that it makes story feel distant and separate entity. Of course, you can try and make some connections but they are always loose.

When I tried playing Dragon Age for the story (and, coincidentally, I did play for the story only because I don't like the type of gameplay in RPG's) I got bored because there was a lot of redundancy. And that redundancy was gameplay. If gameplay was unfolding the story then it wouldn't have been redundant. But it wasn't.

[Musenik]

I can speak to this subject from several experiences. My first game, 'The Witch's Yarn' was an adventure game. It was important to know the story before inventing the puzzles. My upcoming game, 'arcada mia', is a casual-core game that influences story, so the gameplay has to be solid before writing the stories.

The oddball was, 'Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble!'. In that game the mini-games and story were very distinct. Several times I swapped out bad mini-games for, hopefully, better ones, without affecting the story. However, the part of the design that linked story to games was critical. Mini games had to reflect ways that high school girls resolved conflicts. That was the bridge that allowed gameplay and story to be modular.

[Reives]

I think it works both ways; each simply delivers a different kind of entertainment experience. The important thing is to do what you're trying to do well and try not to squeeze in anything just for the sake of satisfying the standard formula of the particular genre.

[C.A. Sinner]

I think a good story (using "story" as an umbrella term for plot, setting, atmosphere etc.) can enhance the gameplay by making it seem more "meaningful". For instance, in games like Fallout(1&2), Gothic or The Witcher I enjoy the feeling of my actions and decisions affecting what's going on in the game world.

It feels like I'm really "playing the story", rather than passively experiencing a linear plot where my role as the player is reduced to that of a puppeteer acting out a script. I doesn't even have to be branching paths, simply designing gameplay that reflects the story can go a long way towards immersing the player. For instance Demon's Souls' grim, dark atmosphere and apocalyptic setting are made all the more palpable by its harsh difficulty.

I think ultimately whether your initial approach was "so I have this really cool story, now I want to design a game around it" or "so I have this really cool mechanic, what could it represent in a game world?" or a mix of both is irrelevant. Do whatever you're the most comfortable with.

[HD]

I don't think there is a right way to do it, only a wrong way. And the wrong way is to think there is only one right way. It's like they say in fashion, 'Work it'.

If you like making the story and setting first, then you should continue doing so. Looking at your other topic, I think the main problem is that you think that there is only one way to make your game idea work, but I generally believe any story can be transformed into any gameplay and be fun at the same time, and vice versa.

Maybe something you could try is to write up a list of gameplay genres and try figuring out how your game can be translated into them, eg: How would you pull off the plot, setting and gameplay of your idea in a 2d platformer, 3d platformer, top down action adventure, 3/4 rpg, something new, etc. etc.. Draw up some concepts and put some real effort into thinking about how each would play out, keeping true to your story. Then you can decide between them all based on different factors:

• Which do you like the best? (you could/should try some quick prototypes)
• Which can you actually make with your current skills?
• How much are you willing to learn to realise the idea (art, sound, programming, writing, etc.)?

Something else to keep in mind is that you can always go back after you have finished and realise your game idea in another gameplay method. It's better if you chose something you can actually do then to abandon your idea because it got too difficult.

[tsameti]

I'd just say that gameplay and story must be married to be effective. If you're making a shooter, it's hard as hell to tell a story about how awful war is, because your player is having way too much fun blowing dudes away.

Sure you can start with a story, but the two much inform and reinforce each other for your game to realize its full potential.

[iffi]

Ideally the story and gameplay come as the same concept, so they (at least the most important parts) don't conflict with each other. However, I don't think that happens very often. The best way for one to approach it is probably the way one feels most comfortable with.

Assuming one is emphasized over the other, it doesn't really matter to me which one is more prevalent, though I'm more inclined to keep on playing a game with great gameplay but a bad story (such as many multiplayer games) than I am to keep playing a game with a great story but bad gameplay.
Also, as has been mentioned already, some genres are naturally more story-driven than others.

Sure, you can design the story first, but you can't completely ignore gameplay (otherwise why are you making a game?). The gameplay should at least be unobtrusive to the story (as in not jarringly out-of-place or overly frustrating) if it doesn't complement it especially well. I believe there are a number of games I never bothered finishing despite their nice stories because the gameplay got in the way of progressing through the story too often, though I can't remember any off the top of my head.

[Gimym TILBERT]

IMO gameplay is not the problems but mechanics, and it's more a problem of writing than the "ludonarrative" dichotomy. If you have random jumping in your romance plot, it's as bad if it's a game as in a movie.

The problem is that we are train to see only a small fraction of mechanics dub as game. If we approach a design by saying it's a platformer and slapping a story on it of course the result would be dissonant.

The mehanics IS the story and the story IS the mechanics.

[HyperEXTurbo]

I can't say it's right or wrong to focus on one thing before the other. When new game ideas come to mind, it simply depends on what inspired you at the time and how it inspired you. Listening to a certain track made me think of an epic plot because the track was very overwhelming. After I straightened out the plot, I went on to work on the gameplay.

Playing side-scrolling games like Castlevania and Braid made me think of a action side scrolling adventure. After working on the game mechanics, I went on to create a backstory to go along with the gameplay.

I think you shouldn't restrict yourself by focusing on one thing over the other just because. Focus on whatever comes to mind first and then complement those ideas in the future. Regardless of what comes first, in the end, you will need both a great story and great gameplay to make a compelling game.


In my honest opinion, I'm a bit more motivated to play a game with good gameplay, despite a bad story. However, if it's the other way around (good story, bad gameplay), I might be less willing to slug through terrible game mechanics just to get to the next awesome cutscene.

[_Madk]

They each have their place, I think. Sometimes I want a nice story to keep me absorbed and I couldn't care less whether the gameplay is as good as is could be, and at other times I might want a game with tight controls and a lot of polish, but the point of the game might be no more complex blowing things up. If I'm blowing things up it's because I want to relax and I honestly don't care who it is or why, and if there were any more than a hint of a story I'd get bored pretty fast.

[LiquidAsh]

I don't think either of these elements should come first.  The experience that you are trying to create for the player should direct both the gameplay and story.

[tsameti]

I think the best answer that can be given is thus:

You can focus on story if you want, but if the play actively suffers, you have to either sacrifice story or reduce the scope of game elements.

y(gameplay to keep player attention)
|o
|ooo
|ooooooooooooo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (asymptote)
|oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
|---------------------------------------(graph continues)
 .                 x(story quality)

Notice I'm claiming that the correlation isn't linear, and it doesn't go to zero. Inevitably, you've got to deal with the fact that it's a game. If the game elements don't fit, it shouldn't be one. Write a short story instead.