next »

[Seth]

I've long thought that one reason I've never been to thrilled with the standard video game story is that there is no arc.  It's almost always a relatively straight line, as the character gets progressively stronger and beats up on tougher and tougher baddies until he gets to the big boss.

Yahtzee touches on this in one of his Extra Punctuations: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7535-Extra-Punctuation-Stealth.2

I've always felt like that 'growing in strength' mechanic took away from the story.  Ostensibly the protagonist is doing it for some other reason--to save the world, etc,--but I feel like that gets lost on the player as he or she gets caught up in the thrill of learning a cool new move or getting a badass weapon.

Yahtzee says in that article that mixing gameplay styles is "almost inevitably rubbish," which seems to me quite a claim considering I can't even think of any game that seriously attempts to mix gameplay styles in a non-gimmicky way.

I feel like there is a lot of talk about letting 'gameplay serve the story,' but in the end every developer his story and then grabs a primary gameplay style and attaches it to that.  If they chose the gameplay mechanic to be, say, shooting a pistol, then the developer will put in a lot of shooting scenes throughout the game, because they are thinking about genre in terms of gameplay, not story, and if you have a shooting game you have to shoot stuff, don't you? 

Shouldn't letting the gameplay 'serve the story' mean that the story should dictate whatever the gameplay is?  For example, have any of you guys seen Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs?  I'm not sure if it's a good movie, but it's an interesting one.   Most of the movie is more of a drama, and the end it a super violent shoot out.  We don't have games like that because I think game developers overall have an exhaustive mentality--that if they spend all that time implementing a gameplay mechanic, then they've got to get all they can out of it.  I understand that sentiment, but again, I think that mentality is harmful to the story.  I don't there's anything wrong with pulling out a mechanic just for one or two parts of the story, even if it is an interesting mechanic--or especially if it's an interesting mechanic.  I think putting something neat out there and then taking it away kind of adds to its effectiveness--like how the Kingdom of Zeal is the coolest place in Chrono Trigger, but you only get to go there for a little while (I always hated that when I was a kid, but now I understand the reasons for it).

Why can't we think about game genres not in terms of "FPS" or "RPG" but in terms "Tragedy" or "Comedy"?  I feel like this would encourage mixing gameplay styles, and I think this could be done with some finesse.  Not every gameplay mechanic would have to be as complex or developed as you might find in a specialized FPS or beat 'em up or whatever, just something that feels natural and serves the story just as much as it needs to (and, hopefully, doesn't seem like a minigame).  I think Dreamweb does this well, to an extent.  Most of the game is an adventure game, where you have to find the right item, etc. (although it's nowhere as lateral thinking as most point and clicks), and then you have one part of the game where you have to shoot someone.  You do this by 'use'ing the 'gun' on the 'bad guy', the same way you solve the other puzzles in the game.  It's effective, and I think it could be pushed a little further without entering minigame territory.  I don't think for this to be effective you can separate the gameplay modes very much, I mean it would be better if they just kinda flowed into each other.  For instance, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories wasn't very effective, I thought, because by the second time you had to run away from the monsters you were already thinking "Okay, now it's time to do the running game again."  Dreamweb did well, narratively speaking, because it integrated the action with the normal gameplay in a natural way.

I don't know, do you guys think Yahtzee is right, and games shouldn't even bother trying this?  I feel like as long as we are content with sticking to one gameplay style per game (or perhaps more accurately, the alternating two-style gameplay: Town-Dungeon-Town-Dungeon-Town-Dungeon.  It still ends up being an overall linear gameplay experience) we're always having the gameplay dictate the story and we will never have very interesting narrative arcs.

[Evan Balster]

We don't have games like that because I think game developers overall have an exhaustive mentality--that if they spend all that time implementing a gameplay mechanic, then they've got to get all they can out of it.  I understand that sentiment, but again, I think that mentality is harmful to the story.  I don't there's anything wrong with pulling out a mechanic just for one or two parts of the story, even if it is an interesting mechanic--or especially if it's an interesting mechanic.

Understanding this fact is how Jon Blow made Braid the sort of puzzle game all puzzle games should be.  I think it's a point of wisdom that goes further than story design, but it definitely helps to enhance story immersiveness by tossing away repetition.  Scripted events contribute similarly by being completely unique one-shot content.


But anyway, regarding the main point here, yes.  I think it's lame that plot progression is linear and predictable in games.  If a well-polished game was put out where the player died halfway through and a second hero took up his mantle, it'd be noted for a "gameplay twist" rather than a "story twist".

I think the point that's trying to come out is that our gameplay should bend over backwards to accommodate our story, rather than vice versa--how many man-hours have been spent fitting "weapon crystals" or "ability orbulators" or "collectible gizmospheres" into a game's story because they were concieved for gameplay purposes?  On the other hand, how many man-hours have been spent on painstaking, one-time story events that turn the game's regular mechanics on their head?  I'm fairly certain the former gets a lot more work, even in the better 'story games' of today.

The exceptions to the above are the most evolved forms of narrative gaming: interactive fiction and adventure games.  These games are designed starting with a story, and perhaps that's the lesson we should take away from them if we want to move narrative forward in gaming proper.  So far story has been an attachment in your average game, and moving beyond that means completely rethinking the order of priorities in development.

I think I'm game to try it.

[gimymblert]

heavy rain

[Captain_404]

I have always thought that gameplay should be subservient to narrative (not story, narrative*). The problem that immediately arises is the increased amount of time needed for tutorials throughout the game, slowing the pace of the game and taking the player out of the experience.

So I think the best option is to compromise. The game should have a sort of root gameplay which underlies all the others. Say, for example, that left/right ere always run, but there would also be an action button that changed functions throughout the game, altering the gameplay in some fundamental manner. Every game does this to some extent, but usually modifies the way a game is played by offering different environments or optional powerups. Not to mention the changes in most games are arbitrary but for encouraging a sense of growth.

Actually, come to think of it, fighting games (Street Fighter, Smash Bros, etc) are a pretty good example of characterization through fundamental changes to a control scheme, despite that these don't occur in particular relation to a plot.

I do wish games would begin to explore these sorts of things in conjunction with story rather than in one-two-three powerup fantasies.

*where story is an inflexible line [debatably] drawn by the game writer, and narrative is the players experience lying somewhere between the gameplay and the story

[gimymblert]

Plot contextual control?

[bento_smile]

heavy rain

Heavy Rain has only one style of gameplay though... (hit the right button to do a thing)

But yeah, hmm... It's probably more difficult to have hugely contrasting gameplay, even for the purposes of a story. But then, it's hard for me to think about putting driving or shooting sections in a game, for example, because it's not something I am likely to think about. But it's nice to have gameplay that vaguely suits the actions in the story. XD

Agreeing with Captain_404 that stuff should be relatively simple to minimise tutorials. But also, if you're putting a bunch of different gameplay styles in one game, there's no way everyone playing will be an expert at all of them, so ease of control is important. :3

[mirosurabu]

Yahtzee says in that article that mixing gameplay styles is "almost inevitably rubbish," which seems to me quite a claim considering I can't even think of any game that seriously attempts to mix gameplay styles in a non-gimmicky way.

And yet most games mix stealth, shooting, puzzle, platforming and driving. Let's think about some. GTA mixes shooting and driving. Uncharted mixes stealth, shooting, puzzle and platforming. Tomb Raider mixes ALL of them. I am not sure what he really means? Contrasting gameplay? Like, um, mixing RTS and TPS? In that case, it can be awkward, but in his case, it's perfectly fine.

The only problem I can see, as Captain 404 says, are tutorials, but I guess manuals would do fine? Or you could make tutorials part of the story or a separate (optional) episode.

[starsrift]

Oddly, I was reflecting just the other day that "horror games" are a genre that encompass multiple gameplay genres (typically shooter & adventure). No other gaming genre is quite like that.

Hm.

[Evan Balster]

Possibly disagreeing with the first post, I don't think putting story first inevitably requires forcing a million gameplay styles into a game.  In fact, I think sticking to one is probably better than anything as it'll keep gameplay from taking up too much mental real estate.


On the other hand, unique pieces of programming and assets for environments, characters and events which the player will see only once, or could bypass altogether, can give a game a sense of depth and reaslism.   This is something the "exhaustive" approach tends to cast aside in favor of sheer volume.

Positive examples: Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, Aquaria, Braid

[Seth]

sorry I ended up rambling a little here, it's late:

Yahtzee says in that article that mixing gameplay styles is "almost inevitably rubbish," which seems to me quite a claim considering I can't even think of any game that seriously attempts to mix gameplay styles in a non-gimmicky way.

And yet most games mix stealth, shooting, puzzle, platforming and driving. Let's think about some. GTA mixes shooting and driving. Uncharted mixes stealth, shooting, puzzle and platforming. Tomb Raider mixes ALL of them. I am not sure what he really means? Contrasting gameplay? Like, um, mixing RTS and TPS? In that case, it can be awkward, but in his case, it's perfectly fine.

The only problem I can see, as Captain 404 says, are tutorials, but I guess manuals would do fine? Or you could make tutorials part of the story or a separate (optional) episode.

That's not exactly what I mean, let me try to clarify...

Most games mix gameplay, that's true, but they do it in a very predictable and linear manner.  For example, Zelda alternates between the Overworld and the Dungeons.  You could break it up into more, like the Overworld gameplay is composed of the town and then Hyrule plains or whatever, and the Dungeons between combat and puzzles, so in a sense Zelda has a lot of different types of gameplay mixed into it.  But it doles this gameplay in a predictable, easily palatable and alternating manner.  Each type of gameplay is doled out in roughly the same amount through the game.  Most games do the same.  So although you have this alternation between gameplay styles, overall, its static--by the end of the game, you're still doing the exact same kinds of thing you were doing at the beginning, just maybe it's a little more difficult.

There's no gameplay 'arc', so to speak--it's linear.  Your protagonist solves all his problems in the same exact ways throughout the game.  This simple progression makes sense gameplay wise, but narratively it's simple.  That not necessarily a bad thing, but I think there's more that could be done with games.

Imagine a game that's about a couple who gambles all their money away, robs a bank out of desperation, deceives the authorities for a while, and then gets caught.  It'd be relatively simple to imagine this as a novel, I think.  Maybe not a good novel, but it wouldn't be too difficult to lay out the action.  But if we starting thinking of it as a game, I think we'd have trouble, because we're so used to thinking in terms of that strict linear progression.  We have multiple parts; the gambling, the robbing the bank, evading the authorities, and getting caught as the climax.  How would we make it so it felt coherent?  It'd be tricky, I think.  No two sections should feel too different from each other.  But make the sections feel too similar, say, by adding mini-robberies and mini-evasion scenes, which is kinda how most games are designed, then you lose that dramatic narrative arc.  The importance of the bank robbery is diminished because of the other robberies.

Most games introduce gameplay elements and then keep them for the rest of the game, even if they change a little bit over time.  I think creating an effective narrative gameplay arc would require the willingness to discard certain gameplay elements after a certain point.  I don't think it should be necessarily "mixing" gameplay styles, but changing the gameplay significantly.

@Cellulose:  I don't think it inevitably requires it, but I think it would encourage it.  Though I certainly don't think that should be preferred in all cases--I'm just pointing out something I'm not seeing in games that I think would be interesting.

[goldbuick]

this thread has way too much text, not enough pictures

[Pineapple]

Portal has no character progression, only the puzzles and GLaDOS keep you going, but new and different puzzles are continually introduced.

Deus Ex merges FPS, adventure, and role-playing and has character progression in the form of augmentations and new (but not usually absolutely better) guns. It can feel repetitive on occasion, but the interactive narrative is what keeps it interesting.

Half-Life 2 is an FPS with quite a few puzzle elements and a good story. It doesn't really do much to break the linear mold, but I felt there was just enough variation to keep things uniquely fresh.

Minecraft? Sandbox gameplay plus light RPG elements and you've got something really amazingly fun; the player is who determines the arc.

Cave Story had very slow character progression, but the cool storyline made the gameplay feel varied and fresh to me even though there wasn't much that really changed.

Sure, there are a ton of games which keep with the tried and true concepts, but you can't say there are no successful ventures away from them.

[gimymblert]

In a gameplay sense there is no character progression in portal, but in a storytelling way both Glados and Chell evolve.

[Evan Balster]

@seth: In that case we're in agreement.


I think it's also worth noting how hard it can be to pull off a storyline where the character "fails" in some capacity; players of games are supposed to be rewarded for good performance; how unpleasant it would be to know that the casino games will inevitably ruin you no matter how well you play?  How terrible to spend a game's length avoiding, though prolonging its inevitable outcome?

Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate.  Most properly it should be like a book.  Played without knowledge of what's going to happen, played for the narrative, and very likely played only once.

One last lingering problem, though, is how to distinguish fail and 'win' conditions in a 'doomed' storyline.  If playable-side-character-whose-arc-ends-in-defeat "screws up" then she dies.  If she is played perfectly, she still dies, albeit in a more scripted and meaningful way, and without a need to try again.

The solutions for that issue are [having some important goal she achieves before death, like a radio transmission], [having permanent consequences for fail conditions; ie, if the player mucks up she's dead for good anyway], or both.  But both of those have effects on the narrative and restrict its freedom.  Side-character's death either can't be futile or can't necessarily occur in the desired manner.  What if she's supposed to be killed by main-villain-guy in a horribly botched mission, achieving nothing?

[gimymblert]

A simple solution is to shift and divorce the narrative and gameplay stake.

What if the gameplay IS NOT about playing poker but to keep someone cover under a poker game?

Failing and losing at the poker game is less important or can be instrumental to that true stake, for example losing at the right moment to get the attention of someone so he did not notice the mistake of the one you want to cover.

[Evan Balster]

That's.  Really clever.  Go make that game, you magnificent spaceman.


(I hope this is enough pictures)

[gimymblert]

THat's the sort of direction I'm exploring, but there is a huge drawback ... I need a scenario, and I'm tied to produce West indies relevant game because of a promise I made and this makes thing realy complicated + I'm no programmer and I need to learn HOw to ... Which I do in trying to reproduce every generic genre of video games ... except adapt into West indies culture with real honesty ... Which is complicate because it interfere with implicit value game design and suddenly becames at odd + slavery is our world war 2 (except we are 200 hundred years old, we don't have enough past to gest past ), I need ways to evade the kind of gravity this subject call.

[Evan Balster]

You rambled a bit there and I'm not sure I completely caught what you were saying.

But if you're in doubt about your programming abilities, don't stop yourself from using the toolsets available now that weren't available ten years ago.  Unity.  Game Maker.  Inform.  Endless others.  You can shortcut yourself out of a lot of programming if you carefully choose the right tool for the kind of game you're making.

Good luck, brother.

[moi]

and I'm tied to produce West indies relevant game because of a promise

Cut off your chains mang.

[gimymblert]

NOT

I don't really care about West indies that much, but it prevent me to fall into the trap of meaningless tropes and keep me motivate. I mean there is enough dungeon and dragon, warfare story and blue alien everywhere.

And it force me to find something relevant to say except save the world.

The main drive is not "west indies" but HEY I bet I can create some new fresh universe, that's why it's hard (I could easily use the local overused material too, but if I will obviously do it, i want to find the fresh perspective).