Senior Member
I was wondering other people’s thoughts on this topic.
What do people think about the importance of story being increasingly emphasised in video games?
I have long held the view that this model can often be to the detriment of a game.
In terms of game development, prioritising story can mean less development time spent on gameplay.
It can mean more linear, scripted experiences as oppose to open/sandbox type ones due to the gameplay having to fit the needs of the narrative. This seems to be generally true in my experience.
Do you know what I find extraordinary about the gaming press — is how increasingly important story is in these game reviews.
A recent interesting example is the reviews of Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
I mean reading a lot of these gaming sites like Polygon, Eurogamer etc. And frankly the pomposity of their reviews, you’d think they were critiquing high brow literature. I mean I know gaming as an art form has evolved but they’re still games for goodness sake!
I mean some of these reviews focus almost exclusively on the quality of the story - you would almost forget that you’re reading a review about a computer game...
It really irritates me.
These Shadow of the TR reviews are a good example. The majority seem to be complaining about the story, and marking the game down for that!
I mean listen, I understand that for some people story is important — and I will admit that it can help set a scene or tone for a game to a degree, and in some cases if the story is actually good, can enhance the experience.
However, reading the reviews you get the distinct impression that because the story apparently isn’t up to par, it gets marked down. And this even though most report the ‘game’ is actually fine, even good. In terms of gameplay possibly the best in the rebooted trilogy.
Personally I think that kind of critique is at odds with the medium of gaming.
Surely the critique should focus on what you actually get to ‘play’ no?
I don’t think a bad story necessarily adds up to a bad game, neither do I think a good story amounts to a good game...
Furthermore I don’t agree that the sum of a good game is 50% story, 50% gameplay.
The large majority of games that I’ve really enjoyed, are ones that let me play more than ones that force me to watch more....
It’s one of the reasons that I enjoy Ghost Recon so much, the story doesn’t dictate the action.
And I especially want Ubisoft to take note of my feedback.
Gameplay should always be the main focus of any game.
Senior Member
I don't care for campaigns. They result in a one-time playthrough. I want a game that doesn't really end. A never-ending battle against terrorism, if you will. I want to be able to select missions to do, and have some of the parameters (like the placement and behaviors of enemies) to be randomized, so the game doesn't end, and can continue to be replayed. The variance in the types of missions, locations, and approaches that I'd choose myself would keep the game very fresh.
Senior Member
I’m not against any kind of narrative context.
But the set up for most missions that exists already is to be honest enough for me. Being given a a briefing over the comm works well.
The only reason I watch the cutscenes in this game is because I enjoy seeing my customised avatar, which is a nifty feature that’s honestly not in enough games.
I think audio diaries like those found in Fallout 4, that can be played without pausing the action. That was a decent method of story telling without interfering with gameplay....
But yeah, in a game like this I’m even less fussed about story.
Senior Member
IMO, it depends on the type of game and/or who is making it. As a tactical shooter, I value gameplay over story in GRW. I was never really interested in the characters in this game to be honest. I considered some of the voice acting and cutscenes a bit cheesy but it didn't matter to me. .....but that's not to say that this formula would work in every game. Sometimes you really need a story to glue it all together. When a story makes you feel like you're sitting on the sidelines, then that is usually where the fun stops for me. Some rare exceptions might be games like TLOU or the Uncharted franchise, etc.
....but a strong story doesn't have to mean a loss of freedom in gameplay. GTAV, the Witcher and RDR immediately come to mind as ones where I actually enjoyed following the progress of the characters. They also loads of gameplay, exploration, side activities, etc. You're not just watching cutscenes or get the feeling like the game is on rails. I'm actually really excited for RDR2 next month both for the story and the next gen gameplay R* has in store for its fans. ....and the online component as well of course.
So I guess I would say it depends in my case.
Senior Member
Your comments are so close minded (in my opinion) and I see you don’t understand the fact that whatever you go for full gameplay or full story, both can destroy each other if they are not instead merged to work together.
I wouldn’t use the reviews as an argument because it’s non-sense, what matters is what media consumers think or say, the press is not trust worthy most of the time at least talking about the huge companies but for the sake of answering to the post I am going to mention both.
Press takes story to consideration because is part of videogames nowadays and their work is to judge, the product they have, as they do with everything but let’s say cars, is all about the driving but what if they skipped the fact that the android/apple system doesn’t work? Mentioning and judging the system is part of their work.
Now talking about why gamers/press take the story to consideration: because in a way, videogames (as other media) tryto tell you something and not only entertain you by gameplay but also with a story, because a story gives you a purpose, makes the elements of the game go forward. The story prevents the player for falling asleep because even though the game has an awesome gameplay there is not purpose for what you are doing and gets boring, and this is the same with other entertainment media, like movies or books.
One example is action movies like transformers, for action lovers can be cool to see a lot of CGI vehicles/robots destroying each other with explosions but for people that may want to enjoy a good movie, well….is not going to entertain them as much, they are going to get boring with the lame acting each transformer movie has. Hot girls, cars, robots, explosions may be entertaining but is not ideal for what people expect from nowadays entertainment, reason why most of the people say the movies suck.
By this:
In action movies more action doesn’t equal to a good movie, just a movie with a lot of non-sense action.
Same goes for videogames, I haven’t read the reviews of Shadow of the Tomb Raider as I don’t care about big review companies but again if the story is kind of average it needs to be pointed out by gamers and press alike because there are other games that may be part of the Tomb Raider franchise or just in the same genre that may have a better one and by so, they expect something better for a newer game of that genre/franchise.
By so if there isn’t anything moving the game forward or if the story is predictable it gets boring, the gameplay may be good if there isn’t anything there to enhanced it or interesting for you, then the game is going to fell flat.
In terms of game development, prioritising story can mean less development time spent on gameplay.
It can mean more linear, scripted experiences as oppose to open/sandbox type ones due to the gameplay having to fit the needs of the narrative. This seems to be generally true in my experience.
To say the actual truth (outside of experience because is not good as an argument) you are very wrong there because if they bother to fit both with each other they can do a lot of stuff. Taking more time over the other can make the game worse, here are good examples which are part of the Tom Clancy franchise :
GRWildlands: Beautiful open world, you can say they spend a lot of time doing it while ignoring a good story and by your opinion it makes the gameplay and by that the game a lot better right? However (only gameplay):
-There are a lot of missions here, it gets repetitive and makes the game boring
-Beautiful open world that lacks details and feels very flat when you start looking at it up close
-Teammate AI was lookdown at, making it the very first time they do a bad AI in a Ghost Recon game
-Things like prone rolling or any type of evasive roll and many other things are not present
- The weapons are lock behind a “make tier 1 operators look for their own guns instead of having them available just to fill the empty world”
-They didn’t even bother to add a knife
-There wasn’t a competitive mode at the beginning and even then the one they added is a copy paste of Rainbow Six Siege
-Animations are clunky
-GRAW 2 had 6 PVE game modes with custom options, GRFS had one guerilla mode plus the best multiplayer to date in any Ghost Recon game, Wildlands has CERO.
-Character models are poor
On story elements:
-Story tries to be serious but the lackluster script makes it very silly at times (which they writte like in a month in order to take care about their biggest open world to date)
-The characters try to be serious but again they are silly
-There isn’t much to say about teammate AI thanks to the fact they do not appear in cutscenes and besides the book prequel they do not such personality
GRFS and previous GR games as a whole didn’t suffer any of that but let’s talk about GRFS which is the previous GR game
It suffer from:
Being a linear game.
That’s it, everything else was 100% better than Wildlands.
Splinter Cell Blacklist suffers from linearity when you look at what came before and yet nobody is asking for an open world, everyone fears such fate for Splinter Cell, what they want is open sandbox levels.
Getting out of the Clancy games, AC in the other hand works better with the open world because it still has a story driven experience and good gameplay unlike Wildlands which depends on what order players complete each zone.
The option is not to get rid of the story/campaign to create “randomize missions” (the comment above) because whatever you like it or not, those are going to get old, the open world is not the answer either, most of the problems Wildlands has with narrative and gameplay with tons of missions feeling the same is the exact same problem other open world games have.
The solution is to have both. A good Clancy story, nobody is asking for something emotional, just something that gets us entertained and that doesn’t mean scripted events or whatever BS people always say, Is about a good Clancy story following Ghost Recon canon, with great care for gameplay, 15 missions setup in sandbox like levels, like GRAW1 and 2 coop campaign levels but with bigger maps a lot of extra PVE modes with custom options so once the campaign is finish we can do something else and an amazing real competitive Ghost Recon experience in multiplayer, that actually involves teamplay and objectives.
To end this:
Good gameplay is not going to make a game with a sucky/lack of a story a good one.
Good story game is not going to make a game with sucky gameplay a good one.
Good story and gameplay are going to make a game a good one.
Senior Member
Gameplay all day for me, as long as the setting is enough to give some sense of purpose. That is as far as I want the narrative to go.
There is no right or wrong, it's a personal preference, but the franchise is based on a setting in which you create your own experience. Sorry, @Lonespymaster, for me the story of GRFS was a meaningless grind that had no replay value. I'm not criticising your preference and I understand it, but the Wildlands campaign is vastly superior for me and I feel engaged in that world, whereas GRFS was a one time play through.
Senior Member
Is all about the taste.Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
For me
Future Soldier make each mission feel unique, with the downside of how linear it is but that doesn't matter as much for me. I remember the first time the Ghost's got the crosscom hacked and Bodark show up.
Wildlands is a very fun game, in certain points it is better but in others it isn't. I do not know what you mean exactly by value as each mission is the same is just that here they make you think each mission is different but you are doing the exact same thing over and over again, is like replaying a campaign of 10 different missions over and over again until you finish the game that's why it feels longer and with "value" but in reality it doesn't have any and i do not remember any interesting moments while doing the missions.
I also do not like the fact that my Ghost has a level, my TIER 1 operator has levels and a skill tree, it also has the need to search for his own weapons, if that's what you mean by "replay value" then that's why for me Wildlands is so poor, because if gameplay value equals to how much boring grind it has, sorry but there's no value in that for me, previous games had no RPG elements and i had all the weapons unlocked from the beginning (GRAW2 and before) that's how i love Ghost Recon to be.
For me value is how much i enjoy playing the game not only the campaign but also other pve modes and competitive multiplayer, i reach level 100 with my six characters in the competitive mode for GRFS, on GRAW/GRAW2 i played the coop campaign and other pve modes a lot i have a lot of hours on each Ghost Recon game enjoying what i was playing.
Wildlands has an enjoyable campaign for me but the grind kills it that's why i do not bother replaying it as much, the competitive mode is a siege copy, i have a lot of hours here to but not as many as i could have if the content had more value beside the time i wasted collecting stuff that i shouldn't need to collect in the first place.
That's why i want a new game plus or something similar in order to avoid such grind in this game plus other additions.
Even with the flaws i still think this is a decent experience, it feels flat if you put it against previous games, talking about story/gameplay/competitive but it is still a game that i enjoyed and a game that can still fix those flaws on gameplay and beyond.
Senior Member
First off, there's no such thing as journalistic approach when it comes to video games 'reviews'. It's all about bullsh*tting and drivel to say what they want to say be it bashing or praising. Pretty much the same thing as you can find from random people in forums - except they have title and get money from it and have a flock of followers that want to hear their drivel written or spoken from third person.
Secondly, games are made differently. Some heavily focused on story. Some on the gameplay. If I want to expect story from Super Mario Bros, that would be so wrong.
Third, at the end of the day, gamers need to know what they want and what they pick. Not everything caters to them and it shouldn't. Unfortunately, gamers still piggy-back-riding the crowd. They complain all the time about Open World being empty while at the same time, they protest about enemies not being able to be cleared from the world. And then, they praise games with finite fetch quest, gimmicks, or irrelevant novelty stuff like playing poker and drinking, while pretty much these 'not-empty open world' games of theirs are just as empty if not more as those they hate.
Fourth, goes back to the first point.
Senior Member
games like minecraft and the og doom exist and do well with virtually zero story
games like telltales the walking dead exist with great stories and little to no story
however when telltale games have bad stories they have no game play to back them up
however games like minecraft that solely focus on game play can't be brought down by a bad story
Senior Member
A good Story can carry a Game anytime, even if the Gameplay isn't always 100% awesome.
Unfortunately Games have the same Problem as Movies: we already have seen everything. Additionally many Developers don't care about Stories anymore.
It's a Sign of this Time, everything has to be fast and easy to consume.
GRWs big Luck was/is its good Gameplay. If it was only for the Story I would have stopped Playing May 2017.
