- This topic has 16 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Just finished Deus Ex. I know, well behind the times, but enjoyed it nonetheless. What I enjoyed about it was the game world and the story, and thus I started thinking.
Tolkien, it is said, would never get a publishing contract today. His books ramble on at the start, ramble on at the end, are completely gender unbalanced and dont really have any morals or lessons to be learnt. So what made them such a success? It was the richness of the world, the history, the involvement, the hatreds, rivalries and characters brought to life over many millenia.
Most games try to tell some sort of story. So to make good games, shouldnt the story take precedence over the gameplay? Shouldnt the game world define what you can and cannot do, rather then (as Ernest Adams wrote) define the gameplay, and then build a world around it?
Dave
-
-
Its all about the story, and strong powerful stories are the future of single player games. You play a great game of hurling & afterwards down in the local, you tell the story of the highs, the lows and the battles that went on to just win the game in the nick of time. Stories is what bond us all together, gameplay is the story. Characters are the figures you follow, learn about them, follow their footsteps on their journey. Whats an RPG without saving the world! Online multi-player teams in FPS build their world of stories, clans are created, stories exchanged. Giving players the freedom to create their own stories in a way, while other games set a pre-set story or versions of it for the player to experience or their actions changes their destiny of the story but allowing them to come back again to experience it.
Everyone has a story to tell, and games will be the future medium to allow people to tell, share their stories with, become part of the story. Maybe with virtual reality in the future.
I think stories and gameplay should not be put on a list of first or second, but both as one concept, thats what makes a great game.
-
Most games try to tell some sort of story. So to make good games, shouldnt the story take precedence over the gameplay? Shouldnt the game world define what you can and cannot do, rather then (as Ernest Adams wrote) define the gameplay, and then build a world around it?
Dave [/quote:1a90ceaf65]
No, the story should not take precedence over the gameplay.
Games are more abut what you DO rather than what you are being told. Thats what makes them unique.
A scenario that you described (‘define what you can and cannot do, rather than define the gameplay’) is ok for some games. A player will appreciate a good story, but if the gameplay is left to play second fiddle then they will hate you :)
-
Some games are about stories/narrative.
Some are about gameplay.Most games are some combination of the two.
There are room for games that occupy any position on that spectrum – they are all games. Where a game lies between those two poles doesnt neccessarily have anything to do with how good it is.
That said, some people prefer story games, and some prefer abstract/rules games.
Ie, some like Quake or Chess although they dont really have a story, and some like final fantasy, although they dont really have gameplay (!) :-)
Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea – as i said most games occupy positions between the two extremes.
It’s not a new debate, the story/gameplay one.
I dont think it helps overly to say things like ‘games should just be about story’ or ‘games should just be about gameplay’.
Some people prefer games about story, and some about gameplay.
The fact that the medium combines the two is whats interesting – a story with no interaction has been done in books and movies very well, and gameplay with no story has been done in chess and basketball very well.
That said, there is probably room for the two extremes, and all that lies between, as games.
What makes a game good or not is not where on the spectrum it lies, although this may certainly influence whether a particular player likes it, depending on what they expect a game to be.
I personally like games that are story focused, if they do the story well, and games that are gameplay focused, if they do the gameplay well – interpolate between :-)
Fergal
-
Naturally, if you get good at both, your well on the way to having a great game. What maybe I’m trying to say is that all the focus seems to be on gameplay in a project, while I feel there should be an equivalent amount of effort put into the story, the background etc.
Also, I do think that the elements that make your gameplay “fun” cant really be tracked down until the the latter stages of a game when testing and tweaking will create the right balance of interesting events, difficulty etc.
Dave
-
What maybe I’m trying to say is that all the focus seems to be on gameplay in a project, while I feel there should be an equivalent amount of effort put into the story, the background etc.[/quote:bae357ac58]
Is the result of what your talking about something like SW Knights of the Old Republic?
The heavy focus on story and background were the key which made it accessible to non RPG heads.
-
The heavy focus on story and background were the key which made it accessible to non RPG heads[/quote:ad79138856]
Agreed.
I’m not much of a Star Wars freak, and never played a Star Wars game before, so when I started playing KOTOR i was more than a little dubious. I would now consider it one of the most enjoyable games that I have played. The background and depth of characters was what made this game great.Other games, like Max Payne, require the story. The gameplay is the run of the mill shot anything that you see, but its the story that draws you in. 3rd person character games have a story requirment.
-
-
Ico – sets up a minimal story (boy trapped) presents you with a task and mechanic (get out+bring girl along).
It only intersperses with short story progression moments.
I like the approach of rewarding the player with story progression after they have earned it; defeat a boss and relax for a few minutes with a cool cutscene. (yeah, yeah old school…)
-
REZ uses an insane story as a very abstract backdrop to the game it could well have been: morphing sprite tries to escape from computer game or WHATEVER.
I like the approach of rewarding the player with story progression after they have earned it; defeat a boss and relax for a few minutes with a cool cutscene. (yeah, yeah old school…)[/quote:6bec1c3772]
The only way to fly ;)
-
The function of story in games is about setting mood, creating goals etc.
[/quote:f83dc8f5da]Despite the fact that you are arguing the opposite, i think you phrased what I want to say quite well :)
In a game, you can use a story to to create a goal that people will want to aim for. The gameplay is simply there to facilitate achieving the goals.
Talking Deus Ex again. Why did I play the 25-30 hours it took me to finish it? I know for sure it wasnt because I was looking for more lockpicks to open more doors – it was because there was an engaging story that I knew I would end up having a choice in at the end.
Why have games such as Enter the Matrix and many other spin off games done so well, despite often having very poor gameplay? It’s because people can associate with the game world, the characters, the story. Does this not mean that the game world is in fact a far more important selling point then the gameplay? And wont creating the game world in advance of the game play allow us to focus on gameplay that is far more enjoyable based on the setting we have constructed (and thus avoid potential waste of effort)
Dave
-
If its a question of which should take precidence between gameplay and game story for a fun game – a wise approach is to choose gameplay for reasons people have outlined above. Generally speaking good gameplay is harder to get right than a good story but obviously getting both is a winning combination.
At the end of the day a great game will probably have good tech, good gameplay, a good story (and good audio, art, content), these things end up interrelated to a large degree and trying to consider one in isolation of the other tends to fail more often than not. I think you can fail in tech or story to a degree and still pull off a good game, but fail with gameplay and you fail all over.
If its a question of what should take precidence for big sales – well grabbing a licence and a publisher who’s prepared to budget insanely to sell the product is probably the best bet. Its surprising though that a publisher or owner of the licence wouldn’t insist that the gameplay is there and fun because a poor game pollutes the water for the brand and for future follow-ups.
-
Despite the fact that you are arguing the opposite, i think you phrased what I want to say quite well :)
In a game, you can use a story to to create a goal that people will want to aim for. The gameplay is simply there to facilitate achieving the goals.
Why have games such as Enter the Matrix and many other spin off games done so well, despite often having very poor gameplay? It’s because people can associate with the game world, the characters, the story. Does this not mean that the game world is in fact a far more important selling point then the gameplay? And wont creating the game world in advance of the game play allow us to focus on gameplay that is far more enjoyable based on the setting we have constructed (and thus avoid potential waste of effort)
Dave [/quote:49dfad9e9a]
Er, I love Tempest 2000 but it has no story:D
Seriously, I think ALL the puzzle pieces have to fit but more important is that the game has to create a self-contained world where ‘gameplay’ and ‘story’ are redundant words.
Tempest is a good example actually – the story is in the play. There is no separation. If you want story, well, read a book. Another example would be Zelda – Ocarina of Time. I saw people criticise it’s story, complete point missing.
One of the best self-contained worlds I’ve seen in a modern game was in Majora’s Mask. Incredibly well done.
-
Whenever we go into a development cycle, we are obviously going to try and create the best game play, world, music etc we can given the budget and time constraints. Thats why we do it. The question is more which one should take precedence in spawning the other?
If I start with a vivid game world from which I can derive a strong understanding of what type of gameplay I should create, I feel that this will integrate the world and gameplay very strongly.
On the other hand, if I start with gameplay, then whatever gameworld I create has to conform to what has already been decided upon, and I suddenly I can’t do things that would suit the setting without stepping back and altering previous work.
Dave
-
Whenever we go into a development cycle, we are obviously going to try and create the best game play, world, music etc we can given the budget and time constraints. Thats why we do it. The question is more which one should take precedence in spawning the other?
If I start with a vivid game world from which I can derive a strong understanding of what type of gameplay I should create, I feel that this will integrate the world and gameplay very strongly.
On the other hand, if I start with gameplay, then whatever gameworld I create has to conform to what has already been decided upon, and I suddenly I can’t do things that would suit the setting without stepping back and altering previous work.
Dave [/quote:1d6173eaf3]
I disagree, frankly, you could work it in either direction, saying that starting with story will limit gameplay just as starting with gameplay limits story. In the end, you’ve got to be flexible. You are trying to create an interactive experience that your audience will enjoy, you have to think about how the audience will receive this enjoyment and then you develop the game in this direction. Things will be changed and turned around and one change in one area will effect other areas, it’s all part of the creative process.
-
For a game, gameplay should be the first requirement. If the story is the main element, then it’s not really a game. This is a similar situation to what you get in traditional rpgs; some people regard it as a game, kill the monsters, steal the loot, old school D+D, and have GMs who rigidly impose the rules of gameplay on the players, while others are obsessed with their characters and intangible, emotional objectives and fulfilment and have GMs who emphasis the story and might have players make one or two dice rolls a session.
It’s the dice versus narrative divide where things get tricky, and I think games are starting to look at making gameplay serve the story and story serve the gameplay.
Look at Max Payne. As far as gameplay went, it introduced the idea of bullet time into a computer game, so that fact influenced the story into an archetypal maverick cop against everyone else, and gave the game its cinematic leaning. Then story elements from that became part of the game, movie references, cinematic locations, etc.
You need to consider both, ideally one feeding off the other which then comes back and strengthens the original.
-
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.