The Game Designer's Dilemma

[The Blind Archer]

Since it was asked that a new topic be made, it was done. (Wasn't sure where to put it; since I intend for actual discussion to happen on the subject, it was placed here rather than the Other Games board. My bad if it was supposed to be there, but whatever)

Now then, the subject matter. What do readers consider to be the most important aspect of a video game? Any video game in general? Is it a gripping, compelling story? A well-composed or atmospheric soundtrack? Deep, complex gameplay? Realistic/stylish visuals? How should they be balanced? Is there a universal balance that can be achieved in every game?

I'll start off by copy-pasting my current responses to the arguments presented in Blademaster's hack thread, spoilerized due to length.

Did I ever say anything of the sort? All I merely said was that gameplay was the most important thing, which is undeniable in general but there are exceptions (visual novels for example).

Nor did I say it wasn't important. I also believe that there are plenty of times where story can take a perfectly good backseat to gameplay. See: Tetris, any FPS published by Activision

They are, but I don't think most people in general like the stories found in most RPG's out there since they have too many anime cliches, and cliches in general...

Fire Emblem is stylistically an anime game. And being a turn-based game coming from Japan, of course it's bound to have anime stereotypes. By the dozen. But it also, for the most part, has a highly varied and colorful cast of characters, each with his or her own story. Naturally, there are exceptions (see: the new characters from Radiant Dawn and the entirety of Shadow Dragon).

That being said, cliche's are not a bad thing by any means. How they're used, however, can make or break a good story.

I generally get the impression that FE is a series more like those games. Most of the praise I see for the series is for its fun game play.

Much like everyone who debates character tiers for single player games where tier lists are pointless, personal experience means nothing. I enjoyed FE7 when I first played it because of two things: the animations, and the supports being full of juicy exposition, nor am I the only one.

Now, onto your comparison. What's something that all of the units in Starcraft/AoE/TF2 have in common? They're only identified by their class. The playable characters of Fire Emblem have names. Have history. Have personality (sometimes). Units in Starcraft just fulfill a tactical purpose, and are replaced at the push of a button. They're manufactured, limited only by the funds and materials you have on hand. Fire Emblem characters die permanently, do not respawn. A more comparable game to my examples would be Advance Wars, where that sort of micromanagement is a key part of gameplay.

The graphics only get the player interested if that is all there is to see. If you are in a store, and you see a game with nice graphics that catches your eye, but you have never really heard about it before, a smart buyer wouldn't buy the game just yet unless they wanted to wing it. They would check out the gameplay of the game first, and possibly look up reviews about the game to determine whether or not the game would be fun. I mean, if a game isn't fun to play, why continue playing it, let alone play it at all? I mean, I tried to play FFXIII, which has great graphics, but had shitty game play (IMO, and lets not let this devolve into another debate over FFXIII, that happens more often than I want it too...) so I stopped playing it.

You say so yourself, the graphics get the buyer's attention. It's the first thing they see. Now, I'm going to contradict one of my older posts. Yes, graphics are a frontrunner in how the game's advertised, but their use doesn't stop there. They can add to atmosphere, they can set a mood, they tell you if you're at full power or on the verge of death. Codes and gameplay make the game happen. Visual elements bring the game to life. Would Pong be the same if only one line could move? In a game like Fire Emblem, where all you do is push buttons and hope the RNG lets you survive. Personally, I'd prefer to watch an active, exciting animation complete with backflips and cape-flapping rather than the FE4!Fighter's two-frame shuffle.

Now, onto my personal argument, away from hacking/FE/etc.

It takes a balance of those elements, indeed. However, there is no one true rule of balancing those elements. I'll pick three completely different games: Tetris, Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and the Resident Evil remake. Tetris is a puzzle series, so graphics and gameplay are key to playing these games effectively. The graphics let you see what you're doing, and the gameplay is moving the graphics into the empty spaces to complete full rows of blocks. The series also has an

that not only adds catchy music, but is integrated into gameplay; it starts going faster when your blocks are stacked too close to the top. This is intended to trigger a sense of urgency in a player, and add to the experience. Story? It's a basic puzzle game, so it doesn't need one. If you think otherwise, watch the intro to Tetris Worlds and change your mind.

Next in line is Marvel vs. Capcom 3 part of the recent Capcom-hate fad. Being a fighting game, you can guess where the focus is, right? Gameplay. However, that's only half of this game's selling point. The other point is fanservice like you wouldn't believe, which is par for the course for a crossover. First, a big draw is that it's a crossover between Capcom and comic-book giant Marvel Studios. So, do they reuse sprites yet again like they did for the previous game? Or do they roll with the comic book thing and create 3D animations and effects that have that comic book feel to them? Music is mostly composed of individual, yet recognizable, themes for the cast and remixes of Gonna Take You for A Ride. For a fast-paced game like MvC3, the music has to match the pace of the game being played. It has to energize the player... but it gets better: As soon as one character gets KO's, the next one in line tags in. What happens to the music? It changes to that character's individual theme, providing the player with his or her own personal theme-music power up. It adds to the experience (note that word; I'll be using it a lot). Now, you'd think a fighting game, especially a crossover, would have a pretty silly story. You're right, this one does. It boils down to "Doctor Doom and Wesker join forces to conquer the worlds of Marvel and Capcom". Is it explained in game? No. However, there are times where the game's writing truly shines. Reference after reference that will make any comic book/video game geek smile with glee. Character relations and interactivity is brought to life in match quotes. This isn't Soul Calibur, where characters repeat the same standard fighting greetings on end; they change depending who their opponent or who their team is. A prominent example being having Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America on a team. At the start of a match, the point character will say "Avengers, assemble". They don't do that unless you have that team. While the effect on the gameplay is minimal, it still adds to the overall game experience; where Capcom could've just had their characters repeat the same phrase at the start of a fight, they keep pouring on the fanservice.

Now, the Resident Evil remake, also referred to as REmake. If there's one thing that matters in the survival horror genre, it's the atmosphere. The paranoid feeling of not knowing what lurks in the shadows. Part of this is created by gameplay; there is a limited number of ammo refills and healing items. No random drops, at all. Use up all of the shotgun ammo, and you have to get through the game with the handgun as your weapon of choice. But would that experience be the same if the mansion was brightly lit? Would that tension exist if the music was upbeat instead of unsettling? This is a case where the graphics AND the music have direct impact on the gameplay. The series, prior to RE4, is also notorious for

This is a game intended to make your hair stand on end, so the atmosphere (being the graphics and music) is very key to that experience. As for the plot? Sure, there are cutscenes, but the story of the mansion itself is narrated through finding the documents and journals of its inhabitants, including one that catalogs a man infected by the T-Virus and slowly becoming a cannibalistic zombie. REmake is a game where the plot, music, and graphics are, and I can't emphasize this enough, a very important part to the gameplay. Without the proper lighting, sounds, and modeling/animating, REmake's gameplay would not be the same. It'd just be a game of minimalism; using as little ammo as you can to get to the end. The gameplay experience would be gone.

It's my opinion that there's no "universal" balance of gameplay, visuals, plot, and music from one series to the next, or even from one game to the next, for that matter. To say one element should take precedence over the rest in any situation offers a sad view of gaming today. Developers have to tailor the balance of these elements time and time again to make sure that the game is remembered. If there's little thought put into this balance... then we'll basically have the same game coming out repeatedly. I'm looking at you, modern-day Activision

Edited August 13, 2011 by The Blind Archer

[eclipse]

In all your examples, the music fits the game!

I think each part has to have some thought behind it, up to a point. For example, if the graphics are so badly colored that I have problems looking at the screen, I probably won't play the game. If the gameplay mechanics are so complicated/silly that I keep failing at a certain point way in the beginning of the game, I won't finish the game. Once the "minimum" threshold is past, for me, I'll usually find my way through it. The story determines whether or not I think it's worth a replay (usually), and the music/voice problems can always be fixed with the mute button.

The only game I can think of that met all my minimum requirements, and that I refuse to play is Baroque. . .but that's because I'm a gigantic chicken.

[shadowofchaos]

and the music/voice problems can always be fixed with the mute button.

We're all different in our perspectives...

For me, if a game has voice acting... and it's horrible, I find the fix for it. It's one of my pet peeves.

Usually in the form of an UNDUB (see: "Arc Rise Fantasia").

Sometimes, it's enough that if there's no UNDUB patch floating around on the internet, it's usually enough to get me to buy the game in Japanese if I like the game enough and hate the voice acting.

All in all... it's a balance for getting your attention AND keeping you playing.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

i do say good sir that everything is importent in a game.

pretty good looking graphics for the system's time, an story that you can enjoy on some level, and gameplay that you enjoy playing are all the bare minimums that we should expect from an successful game.

its games that go above and beyond this that become truely unqiue gems in gaming.

to me an game that lacks in any one of these aspects isn't worth my time(less its a fighting game cause fuck moral kombat's pretty bad story in general i love the gameplay)

[Blademaster!]

Thank you for making this thread. It is late where I am now and I want to get to sleep, so I can't say much atm. I must say that you did start with quite the impressive opening statement. And reading it made me think this: As you are an artist, your idea of what graphics means expands beyond what my own definition would be, though at the same time part of me feels you might have gone a bit too deep.

Now, onto your comparison. What's something that all of the units in Starcraft/AoE/TF2 have in common? They're only identified by their class. The playable characters of Fire Emblem have names. Have history. Have personality (sometimes). Units in Starcraft just fulfill a tactical purpose, and are replaced at the push of a button. They're manufactured, limited only by the funds and materials you have on hand. Fire Emblem characters die permanently, do not respawn. A more comparable game to my examples would be Advance Wars, where that sort of micromanagement is a key part of gameplay.

Ohhhhh, that's why you made that comparison. That makes a lot more sense now. But as I have said before, not once have I truly belittled any of the other aspects of gaming (by "belittle" I mean say they are unimportant, though Furetchen thinks otherwise in terms of what I am saying [i think]) For my personal preference, I would say gameplay > Music > story=graphics. But that's to be an expected result of having grown up on megaman games...

You say so yourself, the graphics get the buyer's attention. It's the first thing they see. Now, I'm going to contradict one of my older posts. Yes, graphics are a frontrunner in how the game's advertised, but their use doesn't stop there.

As I think you also say though, that's kind of because they don't really have a choice in the matter. I mean, how often are you in a place like gamestop and all of a sudden you hear something like "Hadoken!" and instantly go "Oh snap! Japanese sounding words! I want that game!" or are sat down in some place and have something like Mario placed in your hand in the middle of a level and are forced to play it?

In my eyes, based on how deep you seem to be going into how important graphics are, you almost seem (unless such is your intention) to go into the territory of graphics being important because you need to see stuff in order to play the game. If you want to view graphics at that deep a level, obviously such a thing would be more important than game play because you can't really play a game you can't see.

They can add to atmosphere, they can set a mood, they tell you if you're at full power or on the verge of death. Codes and gameplay make the game happen. Visual elements bring the game to life. Would Pong be the same if only one line could move? In a game like Fire Emblem, where all you do is push buttons and hope the RNG lets you survive. Personally, I'd prefer to watch an active, exciting animation complete with backflips and cape-flapping rather than the FE4!Fighter's two-frame shuffle.

Yep. What you think of when you think of "graphics" is a lot deeper than what I think of. When I think of graphics, I really think of something along the lines of this:

I'd like to say more, but I am a bit tired. I hope what I've said makes sense so far...

[Teapot]

In my perspective, I find graphics to be the major selling point, probably followed by gameplay, music, and plot. The pattern varies, of course, but, being artistically oriented, I tend to find greater appeal in a "pretty" game than one with shoddy graphics. I tend to consider games with weak graphical components to be lazy, unless the game specifically and stylistically models simple graphics, like 8-bit games. Even then, I do expect some sort of charm or quirk to make up for the lack of ready detail.

Why? Because it's pretty. And by "pretty," I don't mean it has to be a field full of flowers and unicorns -- I mean that the game makes you want to stare at everything it has to offer, regardless of genre or setting. Detail is the spice of any design, and I love trying to note all the little extras artists add to their graphics, because that lets me know that they put that much more into it.

If you really need an example of this, I'd refer to Fire Emblem. I have no real interest in the series, as a whole, especially because the plots are generally the same weak excuses for war with little quirks slapped in here and there, not to mention that I'm not exactly the most tactically-minded gamer around. However, I've stuck around for one reason: graphics. Now, I do admit the graphics aren't the best, even in the more recent games, but I was originally drawn into the series due to character design. It was inspiring. I remember playing through Lyn's mode the first time around and being absolutely enamored with the portraits. First thing I did when I next had internet access? Googled up some FE mugs and started looking up tutorials to make my own. I've been a spriter ever since, and, to be honest, it's possibly the only thing still keeping me in the community.

Gameplay is second on my list since, IMO, it refers to the playability and ease of control. I recently went back to finish the KH series and was endlessly flustered by the camera controls and Sora's jerky movements. The slightest touch would send him flying in the opposite direction I wanted him to, and the camera never seemed to scroll fast enough. In a game that (apart from the typical button-mashing) requires you to have some form of timing and fighting finesse, I find it incredibly frustrating that the character won't properly move according to button commands, or that he's facing the wrong damn way, or whatever. A game doesn't need to be easy to play, necessarily, but it needs to be relatively easy to control.

Next up, music. I've played the majority of my games on mute (mainly due to sensitive hearing), and when I finally turn the sound up, I'm always surprised by what I've been missing...or not. Music, like art, has the potential to entirely characterize a series. Where a design may become iconic, music becomes memetic (I'm looking at you, Guile; you and your goes-with-everything theme). Let's take Touhou as our example, shall we? Yes, I realize it's overrated and is subject to severe hype backlash, but I'm fairly certain most individuals first came into contact with the series via some silly music video by IOSYS, or related musical shenanigans. The graphics aren't beautiful - far from it, in fact, with ZUN's awful zombie mikos, kneeless lolis, and mob cap armies - but the music has defined the series.

Plot. :B I don't really have anything nice to say about plots, TBH, seeing as I haven't actually ever played a game where I've been wholly riveted to the story. Most stories, IMO, seem like weak excuses for running around and beating the tar out of your enemies. A good story is good spice, textbook-wise, but when it comes down to actually playing the bloody thing, you're probably less interested in it than getting around to handing the next boss' ass back to him. Plot is a nice thing to have, but unless it's ridiculously absurd and utterly stupid, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me.

[Rewjeo]

I would say gameplay is number one. If it's not fun to play, then I don't care how good the story is. Maybe if everything else was absolutely amazing, I'd get through it, but otherwise bad gameplay=bad game.

Second, music. I can get through a game with a bad story. But if the music is terrible? That's a problem.

Third, story. A great story is a huge boon to a game, but it's not required to enjoy the game the way I feel gameplay and music are.

Fourth, graphics. If I can tell what's going on easily, that's good enough for me. Obviously better graphics are nice, but that's the last thing I'd focus on.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

now that i think about it, story is often the least importent role in a game, but an very entertaining story can save an anotherwise average game in terms of gameplay.

infact i remember a series that once focused on its story and music over graphics and gameplay that was loved by the majority, then the sequels to the past series focused on graphics and gameplay over the story and music, which was still loved, but by the completely opposite people who disliked the origenal games, this feeling kinda drove the fans of the older games to hate the newer ones and all those who prefered the newer games as they viewed them as "short attention span that are distracted by all flash and no substance"....which that last line is how i feel about afew gundam series but thats for another discussion, and i'm part of the older fans.

but with that said, do you guys feel like an game's charactors are catagorized in story or something esle?

now that i thought about it, charactors can very well make or break an game for you,for me it would be compairing the charactors from Tales of the Abyss(loved) to Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World(hated).

the more charactors or main charactors you like/dislike, the more you'll end up loving/hating the game.

atleast thats how i see it.

[Max Power]

Being a game designer myself, I thought I'd add some thoughts to the conversation :)

When approaching the design of a new game, I never let ANYTHING out of the planning process. People often argue that some point is more important than another, but the truth is, imo, if your game has any kind of non-minor flaw, people will probably focus more on this flaw than on any good point (unless this point is really awesome).

Imo, a good approach to design your game is to start focussing on your game's strong points, then to focus on your game's weak points. The game strong point will vary depending on the game you make. People often argue that graphics aren't necessarily as important as gameplay, and for RPGs and strategy/tactics games, I would have to approve. However, try making a blockbuster shooter without having good graphics: it's simply impossible, unless your concept is crazy unique (which is even MORE difficult to achieve lol).

In tactics/strategy/rpgs, the two major points to make a good game are, imo, a good battle system and a good character progression/management/customization. People often argue that the plot may be as important as these points, and, as much as I'd love to agree, I don't lol: how many games do you pick up and say: wow, that is a good story! ... It doesn't happen often (or perhaps am I just being over-criticizing lol?) I believe that as long as the story is ok, the game can still be considered good as long as it has good battles and a good character system. But don't get me wrong: a bad story will make a poor RPG/Tactics, and a good story is definitely a plus! But even today, I still enjoy playing FF5 despite its horrible story (oooooh it was bad....) because I really enjoy its class system and it has a few good battles in it.

People often argue that good graphics aren't that important for Tactics/RPGs. I agree, but as long as the game has its own personality, its own charm that makes it unique. For example, the GBA FE aren't graphically exceptionnal, but they have their own beautiful unique charm, making them pleasing to the eyes (and the mind), despite being simple. Character protrats are particularly well done and add a certain uniqueness to the titles (people are still today trying to make their own FE styled portaits!). And I believe that, overall, IS did a very good job with the GBA FE graphics.

It may seem over simplistic, but to resume, to design a good game, you have to focus on your strengths then on your weaknesses. A good game has a couple of strong points and nearly no flaws.

And once you've completed the game, how do you know if the game is good or not? If your players enjoyed the time they played your game, don't ask too many questions, for you know you made a good game. (and don't spend too much time on the hardcore player's forums, for they will over criticize what you did, even though they really enjoyed it and are craving for the sequel lol)

[Rewjeo]

However, try making a blockbuster shooter without having good graphics: it's simply impossible, unless your concept is crazy unique (which is even MORE difficult to achieve lol).

That's a fair point, although I don't like a lot of games with good graphics. It seems to me that if a game really needs good graphics for people to enjoy it, then it's not a very good game.

[eclipse]

Hmmm. . .

I have yet to not complete a game because the story was bad. I have stuck with games that I would've otherwise dropped (due to gameplay) because of the story. Guess bad writing won't stop me from finishing things!

[Lux Aeterna]

I'm a future game designer (hopefully), but since I'm not yet, I have no expertise on this subject. But, my two cents:

What is the main reason that a game is memorable/good/enjoyable/etc.? It fulfills its purpose in an original manner. Look at the back cover of most games and you'll see a summary that praises some of its finer points. The question then becomes... Does it truly make its qualities innovative? Are they gripping? Here, let me think up a couple of examples...

Left 4 Dead. So many games have done the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" thing before, so what makes it different? What makes it good? Simple... it brings something new to the table (or if you're easily satisfied, you get to fight zombies). Instead of most games up to date about this survival horror genre, it encourages camaraderie. You and three other people have to work together to survive, rather than a lot of games of the genre where you must work alone. And it carries it off /well/, creating a sort of bond between the teammates. Because in the harder modes, unless you're incredible, you will not survive without your teammates.

Persona 3 & 4. They both integrated relationships with other people and linked it to a good piece of your power in fights. I may be wrong, but I've never seen that done before. It was innovative, and a gripping idea. So I flew through P4 and am playing P3 now.

Pokemon. No, I'm not talking about now, but when it started. It was the first game to ever give you the chance to capture some "monsters" and make them fight other monsters. It was groundbreaking, and that's why it's still one of the main franchises today.

But it's also a negative example, because fast forward to 2011 and some people are getting tired of the same thing with gimmicks slapped on. Milk turned sour, if you will. But why are people tired of it? Because Nintendo is giving the same game every single time and pretending it's different. That's why I--and doubtlessly others--are getting tired of it. Because it's not original anymore. It had its time in the limelight, and now they're basically just beating a dead horse.

But then there are franchises like Mario which have been around for almost (more than? Memory's foggy) 30 years. At least twelve years more than Pokemon. It's still good because they do different things with it. All the while keeping the aspect of the Mario universe.

I may have just degenerated into a rant that few of you consider coherent or sensible, but I hope you realize that the best of the best are those that bring something new, and things that excite us. Yes, there are plenty of other aspects that go into making a good game. Graphics, story (IF THERE IS ONE. If there is no story then fine), gameplay. (I consider graphics the least important, but that's personal preference) They're all important, but as long as there's /something/ new and interesting, it'll grab attention.

Although again, if you neglect the aspects of the game itself, it's going to sell poorly. I was just talking about the main aspect.

[Max Power]

I agree with most of your points Lux.

I'm a bit sad to see good franchises like Pokemon (although I am not a Pokemon fan) to grow stagnant like it does. However, when you have a blockbuster franchise that sell millions for every good/average game they make, you can be certain that the parent company is going to put pressure on the developper to make a new game every year. Unfortunately, when you make a "new" game every year, if you try to do something different everytime, your games will quickly lose their roots and you're gonna end up with something people don't like much and they'll start saying things like "man the old ones were better!"

Overall, this is a bit weird coming from Nintendo. They've managed most of their franchises so well over the year that it is a bit unlike them to get all the juice they can get from a single franchise. I mean, how many Super Mario games they could have made for the SNES, or the 64 or the Gamecube, etc. and reap the juicy profits they'd have make with these? Yet, they've rarely made more than 1-2 games per franchise per console over the years. This way, most of their franchises still feel fresh when they come out on the next console.

I wonder where the Pokemons will be in 10 years...

And man do I wonder where Call of Duty will be in 10 years lol...

Man I hope Activision won't screw Blizzard over the time... Perhaps my most hated and favorite video game companies together... It still hurts...

Edited August 13, 2011 by Max Power

[Myke]

This is a pretty SWEET topic and I plan on making my own walloftext summary but before anyone goes any further I'd like you all to know that almost every time you've discussed the importance of 'graphics' you're talking about aesthetics. If a character model is well-designed, if the colour palette is well chosen, if the weather effects and terrain is deeply atmospheric, or if the HUD/menu stuff is pleasing, you have an artistic designer to thank. If you can see the sweat on the brow you're about to pierce with a bullet, if you can fit the entire state of Texas within your draw distance, or if you have more pixels in your resolution than the plague claimed victims, you have programmers to thank.

It is very important to distinguish these two things, because every time someone posts about how amazing the graphics in X game were, an artist gets fired and a programmer gets hired. This has been happening for decades now, and is the reason why so many games are high-fidelity brown wastelands populated by ugly brown space marines staring down the barrels of their ugly brown guns.

[Parrhesia]

Honestly, and this may be a bit of a segue, I think the next guy to develop a mainstreamish FPS should step back and take a good look at Doom 1 and 2. The music is bright and cheerful (for the most part: And that contrast when it comes is what makes me flip my shit in 2's endgame), the colours are defined, and it's...fun as all hell. A good story is amazing, but Doom recognised that it barely needed a story at all. And you imprinted on the protagonist, in the absence of basically anything else.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the storyline exists, do it RIGHT. But don't leave a faint sheen and try to call it dark realism.

[Anouleth]

I think that a distinction should be drawn between setting and plot. If there are documents lying around the mansion that the player can read as they explore, that is not so much plot as it is setting. Setting is obviously very important in video games because it is what the player is exploring. Part of the lasting appeal of Zelda, or Pokemon, or World of Warcraft is exploring a huge fantasy world. But one would hardly say that Pokemon or World of Warcraft or Zelda are games that rely on plot when really it would be more accurate to say they rely on setting.

[Myke]

I think that a distinction should be drawn between setting and plot. If there are documents lying around the mansion that the player can read as they explore, that is not so much plot as it is setting. Setting is obviously very important in video games because it is what the player is exploring. Part of the lasting appeal of Zelda, or Pokemon, or World of Warcraft is exploring a huge fantasy world. But one would hardly say that Pokemon or World of Warcraft or Zelda are games that rely on plot when really it would be more accurate to say they rely on setting.

While technically correct, I don't think this distinction is necessary. If we are to rank visual, audio, narrative and gameplay elements, I would argue that gameplay always comes first - and this 'setting' you're talking about is just a method of weaving the narrative and gameplay together. While the examples you gave use this technique to give depth to the world and convey its history to the player, just as often it is used to bring the player up-to-speed on the contemporary plot. Braid is a great example of this, wherein the player only understands the story fully through playing the final missions.

Video games are an interactive media first and foremost, and those which give the gameplay a low priority are probably better off as films or novels. Many recent eastern RPGs are guilty of putting their cinematics first, with Final Fantasy XIII the most notorious example. If your product is a series of short corridors linking together giant cutscenes, then you might as well have just omitted the corridors.

It is possible, however, for a grand and well-told tale to coexist with an interactive world, such as in games like Assassin's Creed. Throughout the series is strewn dozens of hours of expository speech, but the player is given freedom to explore their immediate surroundings during it, or even better, this dialogue takes place during transit between areas.

Whether the story is told through vignettes scattered about the environment (Bioshock), hour-long dialogue marathons (Dragon Age) or by the player's actions as they progress through a linear world (Super Mario World et al), almost every game does have a narrative, so I would posit that it should be considered second. There are exceptions, but if you were to consider all of your favourite games it is likely you would find they all have fantastic and well-conceived plots, even if it is unorthodox or not immediately apparent. I feel that the audio and visual components exist to enhance these two core components, and being a more visual person I tend to prefer the aesthetic over the aural.

Even in games where the visuals are part of the game's primary focus, such as in Okami and Limbo, they are tied into the gameplay. The same is done with games like Guitar Hero and Tetris regarding their auditory components. Thus, gameplay before narrative before visuals before audio - with the latter three subject to change at the developer's desire.

Greater men than me have said it: video games are unique in the interactivity. From the moment your software is launched, the player (player, not viewer or reader) waits and watches with their input device in hand. The less freedom they have to use this device, the less they enjoy using it, the less likely they are to continue playing!

However, try making a blockbuster shooter without having good graphics: it's simply impossible, unless your concept is crazy unique (which is even MORE difficult to achieve lol).

If you want to make a shooter without a unique concept, you might as well just buy some shares in Activision and go back to your day job. The same goes for any genre of game.

[Anouleth]

While technically correct, I don't think this distinction is necessary. If we are to rank visual, audio, narrative and gameplay elements, I would argue that gameplay always comes first - and this 'setting' you're talking about is just a method of weaving the narrative and gameplay together.

I disagree. Weaving narrative and gameplay together is an impossibility. A narrative is events occuring outside the player's control. If those events are beyond the player's control, they are not part of gameplay. I can control Samus and move her around. That is gameplay. If Samus starts moving around on her own accord in a cutscene, that is narrative. If narrative elements mean anything, they mean something that is mutually exclusive with gameplay, events occuring outside the player's control.

What you make it sound like is that setting is a way for a video game developer to fit their plot into the game without offending the player with long cutscenes. That is, that Rapture was created so that Warren Spector could write infodumps to litter around. Or the Chozo Ruins were created so that Retro Studios could tell the story of the Chozo race dying. How ridiculous. Those text blocks lying around exist to enhance the setting (which in turn enhances the gameplay), not the other way around.

[The Blind Archer]

First, some video game spoilers are in my links. Just a heads-up.

I disagree. Weaving narrative and gameplay together is an impossibility. A narrative is events occuring outside the player's control. If those events are beyond the player's control, they are not part of gameplay. I can control Samus and move her around. That is gameplay. If Samus starts moving around on her own accord in a cutscene, that is narrative. If narrative elements mean anything, they mean something that is mutually exclusive with gameplay, events occuring outside the player's control.

Not necessarily. For instance, might I point you to some scenes from

and

? The latter could even be considered one entire game-long cutscene. In both of these, the scenes play out without shifting to a third person camera; the player retains control. And no, I don't just mean background audio. In HL2, NPCs actually walk around and go about their business while the player can still interact with the environment. Although, if those don't count as "cutscenes", then I might direct you to a simpler example from, believe it or not,

. Yes, a game from a series notorious of having upwards of 4 hours of cinematics and fmvs per game. In this scene in particular, he can't move much, but he can still look around. How? The player controls it. And to add to it, you can hear him shuffling around. All the while, NPCs are, like before, going about their business and moving the plot forward.

On the other hand, if you want some meta examples (that are a lot more frustrating), I could point you to some

or

. Simpler methods of integrating story and gameplay, but still meta. Edited August 19, 2011 by The Blind Archer

[Nintenlord]

For me, a good game is much more than just a sum of it's parts, therefore trying to analyze any part of the game separately from the rest is a waste of time. My taste in games is also very wide, meaning I can enjoy both story-heavy and gameplay-heavy games, as long as they are good. I see this argument as a purely matter of taste with absolutely no objective right answer. Which doesn't mean people shouldn't discuss about it, but it means people shouldn't get very invested to "winning" this debate.

[Anouleth]

First, some video game spoilers are in my links. Just a heads-up.

Not necessarily. For instance, might I point you to some scenes from

and

? The latter could even be considered one entire game-long cutscene. In both of these, the scenes play out without shifting to a third person camera; the player retains control. And no, I don't just mean background audio. In HL2, NPCs actually walk around and go about their business while the player can still interact with the environment.

I would consider that part of the setting. If I can look out a window and see people walking around and going about their business, is that a story? No, it isn't. Story is events, dialogue. Not scenery.

Although, if those don't count as "cutscenes", then I might direct you to a simpler example from, believe it or not,

. Yes, a game from a series notorious of having upwards of 4 hours of cinematics and fmvs per game. In this scene in particular, he can't move much, but he can still look around. How? The player controls it. And to add to it, you can hear him shuffling around. All the while, NPCs are, like before, going about their business and moving the plot forward.

If the extent of the gameplay is "I can point my head in different directions and shuffle around", then the gameplay element is so small as to be trivial. It would be like calling a movie interactive because you can point your head in different directions and shift your weight around in your seat.

[Myke]

I disagree. Weaving narrative and gameplay together is an impossibility. A narrative is events occuring outside the player's control. If those events are beyond the player's control, they are not part of gameplay. I can control Samus and move her around. That is gameplay. If Samus starts moving around on her own accord in a cutscene, that is narrative. If narrative elements mean anything, they mean something that is mutually exclusive with gameplay, events occuring outside the player's control.

I honestly can't see a single scrap of merit in this point of view. In the post above, you define narrative as 'events' and 'dialogue', and if the player conquering the challenges set before them, activating ancient machines and defeating evil minions aren't 'events' that drive the story forwards, then what are they? If the audio-logs you find around New Mombasa in Halo: ODST, or the information you gleam from each villager's predefined line aren't "dialogue", then what are they? Where does the hero get that information, if not through your actions? How does he reach the next stage, if not by you walking there?

Ask yourself: what is the narrative of a Super Mario Bros game? If you omit the sections where the player is in control, then it becomes

Mario is at a castle and the princess isn't there. This happens a bunch of times until he is in the castle where the princess is.

as opposed to

Mario traverses a hostile landscape, defeating the minions of koopa along the way. When he successfully wins his way across the castle's mantle, he discovers the princess is not there! He moves further into koopa's territory, conquering dungeons deep below, vast oceanic mazes and cloud-fortresses far above. Again and again he discovers the princess' servants beyond his trials, and again and again he presses on until he is finally face-to-face with Bowser in his true domain. He defeats the tyrant and casts him below, finally rescuing princess Peach from his evil clutches.

Games don't make sense if you just string the automated parts together. Without the player's actions, Link never leaves Kokari forest. Without a victim to torment and terrorise, does anything actually happen in Silent Hill? Every room you clear, every fragment of the conspiracy you find, every ally you recruit and every mystical artifact you stuff into your purse is a part of the journey, a part of the story, a part of the plot, a part of the narrative. If the villagers who wander idly around outside your window aren't part of the story, then that would mean the world is populated only by you and the enemies. If the turn of the day isn't part of the story, then the game's events all take place in the same instant. Scope, setting, timeframe, these are all important elements of any book, just as they are important elements of a game's story.

[Anouleth]

I honestly can't see a single scrap of merit in this point of view. In the post above, you define narrative as 'events' and 'dialogue', and if the player conquering the challenges set before them, activating ancient machines and defeating evil minions aren't 'events' that drive the story forwards, then what are they? If the audio-logs you find around New Mombasa in Halo: ODST, or the information you gleam from each villager's predefined line aren't "dialogue", then what are they? Where does the hero get that information, if not through your actions? How does he reach the next stage, if not by you walking there?

Ask yourself: what is the narrative of a Super Mario Bros game? If you omit the sections where the player is in control, then it becomes

as opposed to

Then your definition of narrative elements is very vague. It just means 'things that happen'. And yes, I would think that things happening are quite important to a video game, but that seems like such a trivial statement, it's not even worth making.

Games don't make sense if you just string the automated parts together. Without the player's actions, Link never leaves Kokari forest. Without a victim to torment and terrorise, does anything actually happen in Silent Hill? Every room you clear, every fragment of the conspiracy you find, every ally you recruit and every mystical artifact you stuff into your purse is a part of the journey, a part of the story, a part of the plot, a part of the narrative.

When someone talks about clearing rooms or killing enemies or recruiting allies, I would think they're talking about gameplay, not storyline. After all, these are things you are doing. However, your definition of narrative seems to include gameplay as part of it. I can't really argue with the importance of narrative, or how narrative is woven together with gameplay when you have specifically defined the word narrative to mean the same thing as gameplay.

And please, you're not a politician, you don't need to repeat things four times for emphasis.

If the villagers who wander idly around outside your window aren't part of the story, then that would mean the world is populated only by you and the enemies. If the turn of the day isn't part of the story, then the game's events all take place in the same instant. Scope, setting, timeframe, these are all important elements of any book, just as they are important elements of a game's story.

If everything in the game is the storyline, then it is not possible to have a non-story element and the word becomes meaningless.

I didn't realise we were dealing with such a vacuous word. In which case, I would say that storyline is the number one most important thing in a game, since otherwise, nothing is happening (since apparently, gameplay is part of the narrative).

[bunny: spider bitten]

On the one hand, it does take a balance of elements to work well. Including the element of subject matter, which helps one become a little more involved in the dealings of the game - After all, if you aren't a fan of Sci-Fi, it could take away from that sort of game.

But I'd argue that FE is very limited in individualizing characters and, as such, force characters into a very limited set or role. It's a much bigger issue in some games or others, but it's counter intuitive to the argument you were once having.

[The Blind Archer]

I would consider that part of the setting. If I can look out a window and see people walking around and going about their business, is that a story? No, it isn't. Story is events, dialogue. Not scenery.

If the extent of the gameplay is "I can point my head in different directions and shuffle around", then the gameplay element is so small as to be trivial. It would be like calling a movie interactive because you can point your head in different directions and shift your weight around in your seat.

The dialogue still occurs in both the Metal Gear Solid and Half Life 2 example. Snake doesn't respond because he's in a daze after having the daylights beat out of him, and Gordon is the poster boy for the quintessential silent protagonist. Whatever the case, your argument was that plot and control were mutually exclusive, correct? If everything can still play out while the player has SOME degree of interaction (read: not zero), I'd say that's wrong.

Edited August 19, 2011 by The Blind Archer