The Right Balance of Story and Gaming

[jkid101094]

Something I have to get off my chest here. I almost despise Indie games. All it takes for me to turn away from a game is for it to be classified as an 'indie' title.

I'm sure you're all wondering why and I'd love to tell you, but that's the thing. I don't actually know. Something in my head just clicks and I go, "I don't want to play this." whenever I hear that word. I've been trying to figure out why and I think I'm on some sort of track. I was thinking about how most of the games I feel are overrated, namely Braid and Limbo, are generally praised for their 'deep' and open ended stories. As I got into thinking about why too big of a focus on story would turn me off of Indie games I decided to ask you guys and maybe even figure out why I can't stand them.

So what do you think games should focus on? Do you feel a games should Braid or The Walking Dead and put an emphasis on story? Or do you think games that focus on gameplay over story like Super Mario Galaxy or Animal Crossing?

I know having a good measure of both is the best course of action but if you're a human being with a brain you probably have some sort of preference. I personally prefer Gameplay over story myself. While I like stories in games and Mass Effect style save game gimmicks hearing someone go on for six minutes praising a game for nothing but it's story can easily turn me off. I feel like that's the reason I'm not a fan of 999 or Mass Effect or Dragon's Dogma or what have you.

Now before you get on me about my dislike of Limbo and say, "But Limbo hardly focuses on story! The only story is near the end of the game!" Well I've watched Limbo and know that's true, however, I stand to reason that Limbo would not be nearly as popular if it wasn't for it's open-endedness twords the end. The gameplay is simple and the aesthetic is unique, sure, but I have a hard time believing it would have survived on that alone. Limbo strikes me as a game that is only considered great because on it has a good 'conversation starter' ending, if that term makes sense.

Also I want to ask about questionable story gimmicks. How do you feel about those open ended stories that bug me so much? It seems like the indie crowd will go crazy for anything that either;

1). Has an ambiguous ending.

2). Has some sort of collection of notes or other tidbits scattered around the game world that don't make sense until the game's ending.

I'm really tired right now so sorry for the block of text, but I'm really curious as to what you guys think.

~Copy/Pasted from GoW~

[Hakudamashi]

This

Remember when heavy stories were in the jurisdiction on RPGs? Where other games the story never need to go beyond "Save ___ or kill ___"
I guess I have the same view you do which is what's burning me inside about The Walking Dead winning game of the year...

Something rubs me the wrong way, where a game like Skyrim comes along, and it gets praised for having a good story even though the gameplay is ass, and a game like Mass Effect 3 comes along which gets hated for having a crap story even though the gameplay  is good.

It seems to me that as the years go by, less and less focus is being put on how you interact with interactive entertainment, and more focus is being put on "These devs are soo artistic, look at what they did"

And yes Jkid, I f*cking hate open ended endings just as much as I hate sh*t endings, in fact, I think they are sh*t endings.

[shadowDOESrock]

Something rubs me the wrong way, where a game like Skyrim comes along, and it gets praised for having a good story even though the gameplay is ass, and a game like Mass Effect 3 comes along which gets hated for having a crap story even though the gameplay  is good.

...isn't it the other way around?

[Hakudamashi]

...isn't it the other way around?

No
And I dare you to play those games and tell me otherwise.

[shadowDOESrock]

No
And I dare you to play those games and tell me otherwise.

*tells you otherwise*

Well, i only played the Demo of ME3 - but if the entire story experience of ME3 "sucks" just because of the ending, i am going to laugh.
ME's gameplay is so mediocre. All ME has going for IS the story and the universe.

It isnt as fluid as Gears of War, it doesnt play as responsive as Call of Duty, it isnt as varied as Halo.
Hell, i think "Binary Domain" did the whole 3rd-person-shooter / choose your story-thing better because it actually had good gameplay.

And Skyrim? I doubt anyone bought that just for the Story.
I dont even remember what Skyrim was about.

But the Gameplay & Exploration had me hooked.
Now, i had the PC Version of Skyrim - and i know that PS3 version runs like ass, is stiff and stutters. So idk how it fares there.

[jkid101094]

Now, i had the PC Version of Skyrim - and i know that PS3 version runs like ass, is stiff and stutters. So idk how it fares there.

You run like ass.

I had no problems with the PS3 version.

[shadowDOESrock]

You run like ass.

I had no problems with the PS3 version.

just quoting what everyone says about the PS3 Version.
Didnt actually play the PS3 Port.

[Hakudamashi]

ME3's story sucked for me because of the whole "Here's the magic item that will fix everything", that's lazy writing, and the gameplay, albeit uninspired, is still competent enough to be a good 3rd person shooter

Elder Scrolls fanatics wouldn't STFU around me about how amazing their lore is, and how it just sucks you into their world and blahblahblah
The gameplay is ass and glitchy to holy hell. Swordplay is worth f*ck all, and archery is as reliable as Silver's psychic bitchslap, the only way to not call BS on it's gameplay is if you use magic, and try doing that without having your allies tear you a new asshole.

[shadowDOESrock]

ME3's story sucked for me because of the whole "Here's the magic item that will fix everything", that's lazy writing, and the gameplay, albeit uninspired, is still competent enough to be a good 3rd person shooter

Elder Scrolls fanatics wouldn't STFU around me about how amazing their lore is, and how it just sucks you into their world and blahblahblah
The gameplay is ass and glitchy to holy hell. Swordplay is worth f*ck all, and archery is as reliable as Silver's psychic bitchslap, the only way to not call BS on it's gameplay is if you use magic, and try doing that without having your allies tear you a new asshole.

You have to upgrade your shit, it IS a real RPG after all.
Unlike ME3.

[Hakudamashi]

You have to upgrade your shit, it IS a real RPG after all.
Unlike ME3.

I'm talking about the awkward clunkiness of methodically moving toward and away from the enemy and swing your melee weapon sluggishly hoping the enemy doesn't dodge or block it
And the fall-off of the arrows is horribly inconsistent.
Has nothing to do with damage output or dexterity or whatever, that's just how the game plays, and I hate it.

And haven't we established that ME3 is a TPS?

[shadowDOESrock]

I'm talking about the awkward clunkiness of methodically moving toward and away from the enemy and swing your melee weapon sluggishly hoping the enemy doesn't dodge or block it
And the fall-off of the arrows is horribly inconsistent.
Has nothing to do with damage output or dexterity or whatever, that's just how the game plays, and I hate it.

And haven't we established that ME3 is a TPS?

moving toward and away?
Why dont you forge a big sword then?

the fall-off of the arrows?
Can be removed with upgrades.

[Hakudamashi]

moving toward and away?
Why dont you forge a big sword then?

the fall-off of the arrows?
Can be removed with upgrades.

Because big swords are slow and easier to miss, not my cup of tea, so I use smaller, easier to handle weapons to find out they handle like ass during combat, thus close combat becomes something to avoid.

I'm talking about the inconsistency of it, not fall-off in general. If it was consistently bad until I upgraded, then that'd be great, but I find that somehow in this god-forsaken glitch-fest that is Skyrim, that even if I upgrade my Archery skillz, my arrows will fall to the ground faster than they should at an enemy right in from of me at random occasions.

BUT BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND
I do having this uncomfortable feeling that people have been focusing more on story in games rather than the gameplay. As in, another game that gets praise for its story is Spec Ops the Line. Now I've played this game, it's quite a bland game that does all the bland cover shooter stuff, it was a nice time, but the story itself was great piece of work, with the whole real-life character degradation of army soldiers forced to murder their own men and innocent civillians just looking for a way out, but then I just think to myself, "With such excellent story writers still existing, what's with all the crap on TV?"

Remember back in the time of Pong where games had no story? Or how about the SNES days where if you wanted a story, you had to look in the instruction booklet? Heck, you have recent games like Borderlands and Sonic Generations that show that even with a throw-away story, a game can still be amazing, why? Cause gameplay, at least in my opinion, is the most important aspect of a game.

[shadowDOESrock]

Well, in my opinion - a game should have good gameplay and a good story. Or atleast an engaging one.


... e.g Binary Domain.
... e.g Bayonetta.
... e.g Halo 4.
... e.g Far Cry 3.
etc. etc. etc.

But Gameplay shouldnt be dictated around the story, but the story around the gameplay. If that makes any sense. >.<

[Hakudamashi]

But Gameplay shouldnt be dictated around the story, but the story around the gameplay. If that makes any sense. >.<

You mean it should be more like
"I want to make an RTS game where you can assume direct control of one of your troops and fight on the battlefield, or retreat to the top-down view and micromanage the war as the King with seamless transition. Now for a story to put it in... How's about we place it in the year 3000..."

Rather than
"I want to make a game about a Man who has lost his wife and children to conflict, and he has to journey across the seven seas to not only make sure they are ok, but also to reclaim a piece of himself he lost years ago... Now what kind of gameplay should it have?"

In fact, wasn't there an interview from the Legend of Zelda team not too long ago that you make the gameplay mechanics first then build the lore around that, not the other way around?

[shadowDOESrock]

You mean it should be more like
"I want to make an RTS game where you can assume direct control of one of your troops and fight on the battlefield, or retreat to the top-down view and micromanage the war as the King with seamless transition. Now for a story to put it in... How's about we place it in the year 3000..."

Rather than
"I want to make a game about a Man who has lost his wife and children to conflict, and he has to journey across the seven seas to not only make sure they are ok, but also to reclaim a piece of himself he lost years ago... Now what kind of gameplay should it have?"

In fact, wasn't there an interview from the Legend of Zelda team not too long ago that you make the gameplay mechanics first then build the lore around that, not the other way around?

Thats what i mean.
And yeah, Nintendo does that.

It works very well for them (e.g Twilight Princess) - having a amazing story and gameplay, while gameplay is still the main focus.
And the game never loses its identity because of that, its always "The Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess".

Alot of modern games use QTE's as a simple way out of that. If the character (or boss battle) you desgined doesnt fit into your game, design it differently so that he fits into your game. If he's a villian, dont just smack in a long QTE battle simply because the story dictates to have a battle with him there.

Now, QTE's can be used right  - but rarely are.