Support NeoGAF

[Inkwell]

I can't believe that some people are still dismissive of the term. It comes off as anti-intellectual and childish. Not only does it broaden our vocabulary and allow us to discuss games at a higher level, it does not mean games that suffer from it are bad. Just like pointing out sexist tropes as problematic, it doesn't discredit the entire rest of the work or reflect poorly on those who enjoy the work.

I've found that games that have a harmonious ludonarrative are much more satisfying, especially when gameplay is completely married to the story being told. Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons does this wonderfully. This thread has focused so much on games that are dissonant. I hope people can bring in more examples where the opposite shows how it can enhance the experience.

 

[Plum]

Let's frame it like this: Many characters are or eventually enter a state of despair because they are the verge of going hollow, which is effectively death or a fate worse than death. The world itself is in a state of decay. On the other hand, your character doesn't decay at all, you merely become stronger and stronger, and this is despite you running head first into the mechanic which accelerates decay - "death". You can run out of humanity, souls, and look like a corpse like all the hollows you defeat along the way, but you are pretty much as mentally sound as you were when you left the asylum. The hollowing process only really makes sense with a perma-death system, which means we loop back to the same old problem of fail-states.

Hollowing doesn't come as a result of just dying a lot, it comes out of losing your purpose in life. Side Character spoilers:

Spoiler

The Crestfallen Warrior, after hearing both bells being rung, hollows. Big Hat Logan, after finding the Duke's Archives and reading everything there, hollows. Artorias, after failing in his mission to quell the Abyss, hollows.

Every character who fulfils or gives up their life's purpose hollows out nearly immediately afterwards. In regards to you as a player "hollowing" is just a metaphor for you giving up on the game. As long as you have the motivation to succeed you'll never "hollow" no matter how many times your character dies.

I can't believe that some people are still dismissive of the term. It comes off as anti-intellectual and childish. Not only does it broaden our vocabulary and allow us to discuss games at a higher level, it does not mean games that suffer from it are bad. Just like pointing out sexist tropes as problematic, it doesn't discredit the entire rest of the work or reflect poorly on those who enjoy the work.

I've found that games that have a harmonious ludonarrative are much more satisfying, especially when gameplay is completely married to the story being told. Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons does this wonderfully. This thread has focused so much on games that are dissonant. I hope people can bring in more examples where the opposite shows how it can enhance the experience.

Here's a list of games I've played recently where the narrative and gameplay mesh together really well:
- NieR: Automata (100% this so much just play it now)
- Zelda: BotW
- What Remains of Edith Finch
- DOOM
- Little Nightmares
If you care about this sort of thing I'd implore you to play these. Get Edith Finch and Nightmares in a sale though as they're very short in terms of content.

 

[Darkstorne]

I totally get that, but in this example, how much onus is on the player as an actor in that space to play the role of Marston? If the player did, would there be any dissonance to speak of, or is LD about the ‘potential’ to break from the prescribed story and create dissonance?

I don't think there's an expectation for the player to completely role play into the story, because the developers go out of their way to encourage players to act however they like within the game. That could definitely make for an amazing game concept, that essentially challenges a player to embrace a specific identity and playstyle somehow, but I don't think that's even remotely the goal with games like RDR and GTA. I think they just have too much disconnect between narrative and gameplay, and I really believe that limiting gameplay to enforce the story would be the wrong way to go about fixing this (something some people are suggesting in this thread) when the strength of an interactive medium should lie in having a game's narrative evolve and develop based on the actions that players choose to take in an open world environment. Hence why I feel games still have a long way to go in evolving - we're getting there with highly interactive and open gameplay, but narrative in games needs to embrace the same level of flexibility. I agree with you completely that games need to stop pretending to be films, and instead focus on their own inherent strengths as an interactive medium.

I’m probably going to display my ignorance here, but I wanted to take player agency and LD a little further.

How much does skill level play into LD?

Let’s take Corvo of Dishonoured fame. He starts the game as a phenomenal swordsman (or so we’re informed), but I imagine there were quite a few people who took a while getting used to the system when they first got their hands on it. Does this cause dissonance? The game is informing us that Corvo is an amazing swordsman, yet it allows us to flub a parry. If we make concessions for this, where is the line drawn?

Definitely an interesting point, but again I think this might be more of a narrative issue. Other games rely on (often weak) narrative crutches to explain why a famous warrior is bizarrely crap at combat at the start of game, such as the ever-popular amnesia plot point. I think it works best when the character is just wounded or something after a big set piece and has to struggle their way through a tutorial combat section. It's enough of a hand wave for player skill to be lacking in the early game, but I think the main issue of LND isn't in temporary situations like this where the player is getting to grips with the game, but when the player is able to engage in gameplay activities throughout the entire game that contradict with the core narrative.

Personally, I think it’s a mixture of market forces and a general lack of imagination that is as much to blame. If a game came out that sold as well as GTAV and was all about, I dunno, talking your way out of trouble or dentistry, I imagine you’d see a paradigm shift across the industry.

Completely agree, and exactly why Mirror's Edge made me so depressed. Those guys DID create an imaginative and highly engaging non-combat gameplay mechanic, but still thought it wouldn't sell unless they also forced combat and guns into the game as well. I really do wish we could check out an alternate reality where Mirror's Edge was 100% parkour, without excessive violence and shooting, and see if focusing on that strength led to better sales and critical reception.

I'm very excited to see what Ken Levine has been up to since Bioshock Infinite as well, since he spoke so much about trying to create gameplay mechanics focused on dynamic dialogue and story, which is exactly where games need to be experimenting right now imo.

 

[DrArchon]

Let's frame it like this: Many characters are or eventually enter a state of despair because they are the verge of going hollow, which is effectively death or a fate worse than death. The world itself is in a state of decay. On the other hand, your character doesn't decay at all, you merely become stronger and stronger, and this is despite you running head first into the mechanic which accelerates decay - "death". You can run out of humanity, souls, and look like a corpse like all the hollows you defeat along the way, but you are pretty much as mentally sound as you were when you left the asylum. The hollowing process only really makes sense with a perma-death system, which means we loop back to the same old problem of fail-states.

Going hollow in the Souls games makes the most sense if you think about it in a Meta sort of way. In that, you die enough times and say "Fuck this", turn the game off, put down the controller, and give up. You have given up on the game. You have given up on your quest. You have, to use the game's language, gone hollow.

This is what it means to go hollow. It's not your specific character losing the will to go on with their quest, it's you the player losing the will to go on with trying to complete the game. At least that's how I see it.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Just as like we can go on all day and you people will always be the kind that want to impose their headcanon as the official canon, there is plenty of people in the world that is funny and jolly and all that but have a dark side why can't Nathan be like that? Because some random people on the net decided that he's a good to the heart guy, Druckmann himself said "why Uncharted and not Indiana Jones?" which is a totally legitimate question... why Nathan and not Mario that everytime he breaks a brick block he kills a Toad?

I really don't give two damns about Ludonarrative Dissonance and hate that people gives so much importance about it and yet i'm here defending a game which i really don't care about from people going nuts about it.

People are weird

The Indy movies go out of their way to explain why Indy has to get invoiced beyond "Money." The fourth one didn't and got plenty of flak for it.

As for Mario, the Toads were turned into the unbreakable powerup bricks (hence why they give you rewards for freeing them), and at any rate this lore was dropped after the first game. It's worth noting, by the way, that there are plenty of Mario games that have more self-awareness about how quickly he resorts to violence than the Uncharted games.

 

[Plum]

Going hollow in the Souls games makes the most sense if you think about it in a Meta sort of way. In that, you die enough times and say "Fuck this", turn the game off, put down the controller, and give up. You have given up on the game. You have given up on your quest. You have, to use the game's language, gone hollow.

This is what it means to go hollow. It's not your specific character losing the will to go on with their quest, it's you the player losing the will to go on with trying to complete the game. At least that's how I see it.

That's exactly how it is. You're the Chosen Undead so the only way for the Chosen Undead to go hollow is if you give up on the game entirely. Introducing a system where you go hollow after a certain amount of deaths would actually introduce Ludonarrative Dissonance as what the narrative/the game is telling you would be incongruous to what you, as a player, feel.

 

[proto]

Excellent video.

Ludonarrative dissonance is a perfectly valid criticism, and it pains me when I see people in these threads handwave it away as being irrelevant because "it's a game."

Bro you have no idea how irksome it is, there are so many 'true gamers' out there trying to promote the medium as true art, but are unwilling to engage with basic criticism.

 

[benicillin]

Dan Olson is one of my favorite YouTubers - he puts out amazing content.

 

[JCHandsom]

These kinds of discussions are exactly why LND as a term deserves to exist. You don't think people were having similar discussions about film in the early 1900's? Or Novels in the 1800's? This is all a natural part of the growth of the medium; as Dan alluded to in the video, time passes, more people are growing up playing games made by people playing games, and schools of design and criticism are emerging, creating new experiences and new ideas.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

These kinds of discussions are exactly why LND as a term deserves to exist. You don't think people were having similar discussions about film in the early 1900's? Or Novels in the 1800's? This is all a natural part of the growth of the medium; as Dan alluded to in the video, time passes, more people are growing up playing games made by people playing games, and schools of design and criticism are emerging, creating new experiences and new ideas.

Hell, dissonance in a given medium or genre is most often the basis for deconstructions of that genre or medium. A Song of Ice and Fire is in part derived from the underlying dissonance of having stories ostensibly based on a medieval European setting that somehow doesn't carry across the imperfections of real world Medieval Europe. Much of Nier and Nier Automata is rooted in that age old issue of how the faceless mooks are treated, albeit in a video game context. The dissection of dissonance is a natural part of the development of a medium.

 

[Sande]

BioShock's gameplay, which sets up a nicely objectivist ethos of "gain power and wealth for myself without thought of others and I shall be able to progress," with its resource hoarding vending machine driven economy necessary for survival against splicers and Big Daddies, and it's narrative, in which you help Atlas to advance. Even then, it's something we ignore as part of the suspension of disbelief necessary for any story.

But the twist demonstrates why there is no dissonance here. And even then I'd say that doing what you need to do to survive in this crazed violent world isn't exactly some objectivist wet dream. Yeah you're going to need those buckshot to fend off insane people and in this city that requires you to put a $20 bill into a vending machine, so you'll do that. And like I said, with little sisters the situation is actually the opposite.

But when BioShock calls attention to our helplessness in this regard, it's drawing attention to its own failings and calling us rubes for agreeing to its own conventions.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. What shortcomings? I don't see a clever twist to video game conventions as a flaw if that's what you're talking about.

 

[LinkSlayer64]

I'm finally not in a fucked up state to actually understand this!
And it makes sense.

 

[Riposte]

Going hollow in the Souls games makes the most sense if you think about it in a Meta sort of way. In that, you die enough times and say "Fuck this", turn the game off, put down the controller, and give up. You have given up on the game. You have given up on your quest. You have, to use the game's language, gone hollow.

This is what it means to go hollow. It's not your specific character losing the will to go on with their quest, it's you the player losing the will to go on with trying to complete the game. At least that's how I see it.

A neat perspective, but the game went as far as making the whole humanity and hollow thing mechanical and therefor finite and tangible. I'm not really interested in meta-interpretations, because by opening up that can of worms you might as well also do something like say every game is actually doing the Sands of Time thing of retconing its own story in real time, it's just not happening "inside the game" with a little quip, so it's meta. Basically, what I'm trying to say with Souls is that making everything really vague and meta might work as a solution at some level, but it's really just making you do all the work by filling in the blanks with something that works. The whole framework isn't widely applicable and trying to do so mainly just makes the limitations of Souls stick out. Intelligent, "sane" villains waiting around behind a fog door after killing you ten times (and not even growing stronger off your souls despite sometimes being an Undead like you) would look pretty bad in other games.

See, this kind of discussion is why dissonance is something to talk about in games (whether the ludonarrative variety or otherwise). Both because it's interesting but also allows us to better think on how well the experience convinces us, or commits to its own concepts. A version of Dark Souls that gave you a limited number of times to go hollow before insanity creeps in would be a different experience.

Dissonance (I agree, drop "ludonarrative", since we are talking about themes) should definitely be talked about, however my two complaints were 1) it's often another issue posing as "dissonance" (hence the discussion is focused almost entirely on "violent shooters" despite existing in each and every type of game), 2) a lot of garbage ideas introduced which put the cart before the horse - adding perma-death simply to resolve the minor distraction of impermanent fail-states might just be an example of that. Also saying ludonarrative dissonance is a stupid idea is taking part in the discussion. Different modes of criticism are not suppose to be complementary, often by design. So, calling it anti-intellectual or "an attempt to stop progress" sounds more like being ideological than intellectual.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Let's frame it like this: Many characters are or eventually enter a state of despair because they are the verge of going hollow, which is effectively death or a fate worse than death. The world itself is in a state of decay. On the other hand, your character doesn't decay at all, you merely become stronger and stronger, and this is despite you running head first into the mechanic which accelerates decay - "death". You can run out of humanity, souls, and look like a corpse like all the hollows you defeat along the way, but you are pretty much as mentally sound as you were when you left the asylum. The hollowing process only really makes sense with a perma-death system, which means we loop back to the same old problem of fail-states.

I see your point regarding the RPG mechanics.

I think the perceived dissonance regarding hollowing is sufficiently addressed in terms of mechanics and narrative. Most importantly, it is done without negatively affecting the player experience. You kind of pointed it out there yourself: you tend to use more resources the more you die; your body 'decays' aesthetically; you lose your 'souls' (permanently on second death). These mechanics arguably have a number of psychological effects on the player, which could be considered the game's (unintentional?) attempt at replicating that 'hollow' state (successful or not). You're either much more careful as you eek your way to your corpse, more stressed so that you make mistakes, etc.

So, I'd actually argue that hollowing is adequately represented, but in a 'shorthand' way. I'd think of it in terms of picking up a medical box and getting healed. We don't see characters actually bandage up their wounds. It's a necessary concession to gameplay and player experience. Actually having the game, say, taking more and more control away from the player to simulate the effects of hollowing in mental terms would not be a pleasurable experience or much of an added challenge.

LD (or suspension of disbelief, which I think adequately covers this concept) isn't necessarily about things being real, but things making sense internally. I think hollowing affects the player as similarly to what the game states as it can without killing the experience.

That's my take, at least

 

[PeskyToaster]

I think Dishonored handles it well. If you climb to the throne on the corpses of those in your way with powers granted by a dark good, you might not have a great ending.

 

[Octavia]

How does that Uncharted guy not get it? People DO criticize Star Wars for the storm trooper slaughter, especially with the destruction of the 2 death stars and all the possible workers/builders. It's been a topic of contention and satire for years...

Uncharted is the same way. You have the majority fanbase happy, and a few vocals criticizing the narrative of Drake blowing everyone away and being a super soldier.

Other games get it too, but Uncharted is the easiest to pick on because it's a semi-realistc tale that isnt wartime along with the motivation (money/treasure).

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't care about ludo-narrative dissonance if the game's story isn't meant to be taken too seriously. That's why I don't care much about it in Uncharted, because it's pulpy and light-hearted. I agree with Druckmann on this to be honest. But I rolled my eyes at Lara being all reluctant and sad at killing and then mowing down baddies like the Terminator minutes later because of how stuffy and pompous the writing was and how seriously it wants you to take it.

I guess I do get annoyed when the game forces you into a cut scene that contradicts the gameplay, regardless of tone. E.g. one baddie pointing a pistol at your character and they freeze and surrender, when you were killing tons of machine-gun wielding henchmen minutes earlier, or JRPG characters that huff and puff at "such a tough fight" when you just destroyed the boss effortlessly - hello, every fucking named boss in Trails Cold Steel ever.

I had a big problem with this in that they were afraid to have Joel kill women and children in that scene where he sets fire to the settlement to rescue Ellie. We know that he's slaughtering them, but we never get to see it or even participate in it. It just felt like a coward's way out, all in the effort to make sure Joel stays "likeable".

Eh, Joel

Spoiler

tortures a guy in cold blood and then kills him after he talks

. I don't think they cared about keeping him "likeable".

It really struck me when playing through the game but none of the non-infected enemies are female. Surely over the course of the game there must have been a few females that make up the bandits/ David's group? The only time the game allows you to kill females is when they are infected, when they are no longer considered "human".

That, however, was indeed weird and I never really bought ND's excuses for this omission.

Instead with Uncharted the enemies aren't faceless goons, they're mercenaries or impoverished pirates who are shown to have families, ambitions just like the rest of us.

...What on Earth are you talking about? The enemies are absolutely faceless, nameless goons. Like... what?

Dishonored is actually an interesting example of the relationship between gameplay and story, because it reveals that a lot of gamers aren't merely indifferent to ludonarrative dissonance, they actually actively revel in it. If you kill a lot of people in Dishonored, you get the High Chaos ending, where the narrator essential points out that if you kill a lot of people, all you end up with is a lot of corpses. No one congratulated you for committing the cool crime of murder. A lot of players were angry about this, because they wanted the freedom to do as they pleased, but none of the consequences. The gameplay affected the plot, and that made people upset.

Yeah, I noticed this too. Personally I thought it was great.

How does that Uncharted guy not get it? People DO criticize Star Wars for the storm trooper slaughter, especially with the destruction of the 2 death stars and all the possible workers/builders. It's been a topic of contention and satire for years...

Satire, sure. It's easy to satirize it. But I don't think many people give really that much serious thought or weight to critiques of Stormtrooper kills. It's just acknowledged as something that pulpy action flicks do, no?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

But the twist demonstrates why there is no dissonance here. And even then I'd say that doing what you need to do to survive in this crazed violent world isn't exactly some objectivist wet dream. Yeah you're going to need those buckshot to fend off insane people and in this city that requires you to put a $20 bill into a vending machine, so you'll do that. And like I said, with little sisters the situation is actually the opposite.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. What shortcomings? I don't see a clever twist to video game conventions as a flaw if that's what you're talking about.

The twist simply handwaves the game's direct thematic opposition between the gameplay and the narrative. The narrative chains you to another guy and tells you that "rational self-interest" is bad and self-destructive, and the gameplay tells you that rational self-interest is necessary and rewarding. No, the Little Sisters are not the opposite, as you ultimately get less ADAM (and at a later time) than if you act in your self-interest and kill them.

And let's not forget that the game doesn't end after the twist. Right there in the narrative, they state that the bonds that constrained the player were being broken. But they're not. The player's range of narrative choice continues to be just as linear from that point forward as it was over the course of the game prior.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Dissonance (I agree, drop "ludonarrative", since we are talking about themes) should definitely be talked about, however my two complaints were 1) it's often another issue posing as "dissonance" (hence the discussion is focused almost entirely on "violent shooters" despite existing in each and every type of game), 2) a lot of garbage ideas introduced which put the cart before the horse - adding perma-death simply to resolve the minor distraction of impermanent fail-states might just be an example of that. Also saying ludonarrative dissonance is a stupid idea is taking part in the discussion. Different modes of criticism are not suppose to be complementary, often by design. So, calling it anti-intellectual or "an attempt to stop progress" sounds more like being ideological than intellectual.

Thing is, claiming it's stupid and advocating for its dismissal is implicitly arguing that it shouldn't be part of the discussion, due to lack of value. I feel that's distinct from differing modes of criticism not being complementary, while still being valid separately, even if otherwise as a position it's still technically valid. As to the anti-intellectualism claim, yeah, that's a judgement call rooted in someone's understanding of the medium, and in my personal case (and to project a bit, seemingly Olson's), that understanding being that reflecting upon the dissonant elements of works within a medium is generally a part of the medium's maturing as an art form, as evidenced by how it has occurred in general. Nerdwriter's video regarding Logan and the phases that genres go through is a good summation of this process in some part, through the lens of the superhero genre.

Now, would I argue that as a mode of criticism it should be used a heck of a lot better than it is, and mostly infamously was in the late 00s? Yes, yes I would. At the very least it needs to better consider that sliding scale of dissonance which is the difference between say, Luke Skywalker's treatment of his enemies, and his father swandiving into the dark side and murdering children.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I don't think there's an expectation for the player to completely role play into the story, because the developers go out of their way to encourage players to act however they like within the game.

If the player is presented with a particular character to play, isn't there an implicit expectation - and forgive the circular reasoning here - that character is who the player is playing...? Did that make sense?

Also, I don't think GTA, for example, explicitly states in game to "GO NUTS", it's simply part of the baggage that genre carries, y'know? Most, if not all, of the missions are given sufficient narrative set-up. Whether they're convincing or not is another issue entirely.

I think what I am getting at is this: the player could (arguably) be considered a primary agent of ludo-narrative dissonances in an open world game if they decide to act out of character. Games are a dialogue, after all; so there has to be at least some responsibility on the part of the player, surely?

Say I play as the character as written, and someone else doesn’t, I won’t experience LD, but the other player would. The game is the same; our actions are different. Where does the ‘guilt’ lie: in the game or the player?

It’s an interesting gray area, I think. 

But yeah, a game that fluidly adapts a narrative around player actions is the Holy Grail. No idea how that would work though.

It's enough of a hand wave for player skill to be lacking in the early game, but I think the main issue of LND isn't in temporary situations like this where the player is getting to grips with the game, but when the player is able to engage in gameplay activities throughout the entire game that contradict with the core narrative.

Some people never get any better though!

Well, it's just an example.

As I said, games are a dialogue with the player. The one thing they have over other mediums is how well they facilitate that two-way discussion.

Not to labour my point, but if the game offers you freedom, but narratively (not mechanically) restricts that freedom by presenting you with a defined character, LD only occurs when the player breaks character, doesn't it? In these open-world games, is LD about the potentiality of dissonance or something more concrete?

Completely agree, and exactly why Mirror's Edge made me so depressed. Those guys DID create an imaginative and highly engaging non-combat gameplay mechanic, but still thought it wouldn't sell unless they also forced combat and guns into the game as well. I really do wish we could check out an alternate reality where Mirror's Edge was 100% parkour, without excessive violence and shooting, and see if focusing on that strength led to better sales and critical reception.
 
I'm very excited to see what Ken Levine has been up to since Bioshock Infinite as well, since he spoke so much about trying to create gameplay mechanics focused on dynamic dialogue and story, which is exactly where games need to be experimenting right now imo.

 
Ooo! I might be able to get my dream Hellblazer game!

 

[UCBooties]

I dislike the breakdown in the video of Ludonarrative Dissonance being about a conflict between the quality of elements of the piece rather than the larger issue of do the game's mechanics reinforce or contradict its narrative.

I'm not particularly interested in trying to apply the term to questions of good gameplay vs bad story or good story vs bad gameplay.

Beyond that, however, I think that a broad defense of the term is good as it falls in line with my frequent argument that if games are art (and if we want to improve the medium) then games are worthy of criticism. Games criticism is new and I agree with the necessity of separating games criticism from game reviews. Games being the most interactive medium we've ever seen means that we need to come up with conceptual frameworks for how to discuss both the received features of a work (art, design, music, story, cinematography) and the interactive features of a work (mechanics, performance, structure, feel).

I think Ludonarrative Dissonance is fine as a framework for expressing the criticism that the text of the work, or its received features, and the experience of the work are in conflict.

As always I think this is best seen in Open World Games. The obvious example is Grand Theft Auto IV which wants to be a story about immigration and being pulled into situations you never wanted by necessity and the bonds of family, while also being a playground where you can use a RPG to go hunting for First Responders. But I think its also worth thinking about how many open world games try to posit that you are on a Very Important Mission and then give you every opportunity to ignore the main mission and dick off for twenty hours doing stunt jumps and searching for tapes or coins or secret weapons.

Note, this isn't to say that any of these things are bad but it is worth talking about because then Developers might pay a bit more attention and say "hey, maybe this game type isn't a good fit for the story that we're telling," or more likely given how large scale game design seems to go, "maybe this story isn't a good fit for the mechanics and world we're creating."

 

[Alienous]

GTA IV is a good example, especially because Rockstar Games tried to address it in GTA V.

If I recall the did actually say that the inspiration between having 3 main characters was to reduce the Ludonarrative Dissonance of things like CJ in GTA San Andreas piloting jets.

They try to give enough of a story context to justify what a player might do, and the open world nature of GTA games mean that they had a more difficult job than most.

They had a psychopath, a impressionable former gang member, and a former criminal who has major issues with controlling his anger. Not all of the characters might be in-sync with gameplay at the extreme ends, but 95% of what you can do in game is covered by the context they set up. They even do something interesting with Michael, adjusting his characterization via cutscene therapy sessions to match the way a player chooses to play him (he can be a well adjusted individual, or a person who gives into his angry, murderous inpulses).

Some degree of ludonarrative dissonance can always be expected, but that doesn't mean that games can't do a good job at reducing it. GTA IV -> GTA V is a prime example of that, and even Uncharted -> Uncharted 4 to an extent (with an increased emphasis on non-violently handling combat enounters, which is more in line with the Nathan Drake we see in cutscenes).

 

[Famassu]

If you're going to see "write the story around the gameplay" and instantly go to "garbage" then of course it can't be solved. It's the defeatist attitude that games cannot respond to criticism such as that based on Ludonarrative Dissonance without "ruining" them. Uncharted wouldn't be ruined if Naughty Dog did a better job at making Nathan's goals more selfless and his enemies less sympathetic.

Mercenaries & pirates who kill ruthlessly & no questions asked for money are bad people. I don't really see how much worse they could make the enemies, except making them, like, rape little children or something... I mean, starting from Uncharted 1, the game starts with pirates opening fire on Nathan & Elena and then trying to board their little boat & get their findings, no questions asked or warnings given, then they shoot their plane down without any provocation, and then they, again, shoot at sight immediately when they see Nathan after he starts exploring the island. These are not some army or UN soldiers just working a regular military job for some government who are ambushed & slaughtered by Nathan unprovoked. They are out to kill a lot of people at sight (not just Nathan, they completely destroy that village in Uncharted 2 etc.), which is obvious from the very first confrontations in each game.

Besides, by the end all the stuff Nathan does is for Indiana Jones like greater good to prevent great evil from spreading. They may start as selfish adventures for riches promised but they turn into fights of survival and by the end all of them (except 4?) are about preventing the unarguably bad/evil guys from getting their hands on some pretty horrible stuff that would lead to much destruction & chaos in the world if taken from their desolate locations to civilization.

The amount of misconstruing of people's arguments here is off the charts. If you can't see how Nathan Drake not being Jesus doesn't mean he's able to kill more people than all of the enemies he fights combined... and quip about it afterwards then of course this criticism is going to be overblown to you.

Humor is a coping mechanism. Lots of people joke in more or less inappropriate situations. I think Nathan's comments/attitudes before confrontations are a clearer implication of his character. He isn't all "oh jolly, enemy soldiers/mercenaries, it's gonna be fun blowing their brains off", but more like "for fuck's sake, they are here too?" A lot of... situations in Uncharted start as stealth segments. It isn't until the enemies see/become aware of Nathan that shooting & killing becomes a thing.

Plus past the first Uncharted (which also just suffers from them needing to ship the game, not having a lot of content and just throwing waves & waves of enemies at the player in every location to lengthen the game, as admitted by Druckmann himself), the games do increase the role of a stealthy approach & even makes it possible occasionally to avoid gun fights altogether.

 

[Patch13]

The problem is that the verb metaphors are underdeveloped for anything other than violence. Think about how the modern controller is essentially based off a gun's trigger action.

So attempts to try to tell story driven games are limited to visual novel experiences or QTE experiences like David Cage games. VR might change that, but who knows if VR will be around for the long term.

There's a lot of truth to this. But I'm not sure that games are as limited by this as one would think, even with current technology and design principles.

The mechanics that actually make combat interesting -- combos, skill checks, etc. -- are not necessarily intrinsically linked to the kind of brutal violence that shows up in games. Undertale successfully split conflict into two metaphors, with the nonviolent route requiring a mix of bullet hell dodging and puzzle solving, and it worked really well, for example.

In the AAA space, Skyrim actually came close to do something interesting along these lines: foes will flip into a state where they will kneel and beg for mercy or run away if they have taken enough damage. This echoes Victorian romances, where the encounters of the likes of Lancelot du Lac usually ended up with one party yielding, rather than being heartlessly slaughtered. Unfortunately, foes in Skyrim don't stay in the kneeling/running state, and will stab you in the back if you let them live. I think that it would have been much more interesting to have the ability to capture them, with a suitable reward for doing so. You might have ransomed them or recruited them to join your side in the Stormcloak vs. Imperial conflict, for example, and this would have been perfectly in keeping with the medieval theme.

As far as the triggers go, Beyond Good and Evil touched on the idea of using aim and shoot mechanics to represent taking photos rather than shooting people. It still fell back on combat to drive a lot of the story, but it did so for marketing reasons (the devs were afraid that an AAA game with no combat wouldn't sell), rather than due to inherent limitations in the mechanics and tech available to the devs.

Basically, a controller based game on a 2d screen could use the same mechanics as a violent game, but switch the metaphors around if the neck-snapping, head-shotting ones were at odds with the story. Of course, as a community, we've grown used to the ultraviolence, and are even averse to toning stuff down, fearing the whiff of censorship. But that's kind of on us -- it's not really the controller's fault

 

[Sande]

The twist simply handwaves the game's direct thematic opposition between the gameplay and the narrative. The narrative chains you to another guy and tells you that "rational self-interest" is bad and self-destructive, and the gameplay tells you that rational self-interest is necessary and rewarding.

But isn't it possible that it's good in one situation and not the other? You know, surviving in a dead city filled with lunatics vs. an economic system for a healthy society. That's not inherently contradictory.

I guess if you're expecting every facet of the game to 100% enforce the same themes then it doesn't really hold together. Bioshock definitely could have used some kind of comeuppance for Jack if you continue to gather ADAM with reckless abandon (I don't think the bad ending is really it) and more opportunities for being altruistic.

 

[Wulfram]

If the player is presented with a particular character to play, isn't there an implicit expectation - and forgive the circular reasoning here - that character is who the player is playing...? Did that make sense?

Also, I don't think GTA, for example, explicitly states in game to "GO NUTS", it's simply part of the baggage that genre carries, y'know? Most, if not all, of the missions are given sufficient narrative set-up. Whether they're convincing or not is another issue entirely.

I think what I am getting at is this: the player could (arguably) be considered a primary agent of ludo-narrative dissonances in an open world game if they decide to act out of character. Games are a dialogue, after all; so there has to be at least some responsibility on the part of the player, surely?

Say I play as the character as written, and someone else doesn’t, I won’t experience LD, but the other player would. The game is the same; our actions are different. Where does the ‘guilt’ lie: in the game or the player?

It’s an interesting gray area, I think. 

But yeah, a game that fluidly adapts a narrative around player actions is the Holy Grail. No idea how that would work though.

One question is whether a game is promoting certain types of behaviour even if they're not forcing it. I haven't played GTA (ducks) but in Saints Row the game doesn't make you go on random killing sprees, but it does make it so that its really pretty easy to get into a confrontation which will naturally escalate into a killing spree if you don't run off and hide. And killing sprees will tend to give you a bunch of XP+Money and even if you die at the end you just revive with a minimal penalty and no consequence.

(This isn't a criticism of Saints Row to be clear, random killing sprees fit the game very well)

Whereas Skyrim generally allows you to de-escalate minor conflicts, and will stick you with a bounty that may prove a persistent problem. And killing everyone will lead to you missing out on quests. Its still allowing the player the freedom to go on a killing spree, but its not encouraging in the same way.

 

[brian!]

video game reviews that do the whole split of
graphics: x/10
story: x/10
etc.

that shit is the worst

 

[Lionel Richie]

Never took off where? Here? Academia?

Anywhere. Ludonarrative dissonance is a thing that gets brought up every 2 months or so and it makes people go like yeah right that was a thing. Even Campster's video is called the debate that never took place and it kind of never did. It peaked in 2013 and then had another peak evidently because of the Uncharted 4 trophy and then it died back down a bit. Because ultimately there aren't many games that could serve as examples for it.

It's not just about the violence, it's that Nate isn't even really the 'good guy' half the time, he's just as much an armed thief as everyone else who wants the treasure for himself and is prepared to kill for it, it's just implied that's he's the 'hero' because he's a handsome, affable white bloke with likeable friends that is the player character. The comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones works as a matinee fantasy adventure but doesn't really work in terms of character motivation for the level of violence deployed, when Luke and Indiana are outmatched and trying to hinder the overwhelming powerful evil forces of their respective universes, rather than just being a thief with a motivation of competing with them for personal gain. Indiana kills dozens because the Nazis shouldn't have phenomenal cosmic power. Nate kills hundreds because treasure should be on his mantelpiece rather than some other mercenary.

But you see, that's a very subjective take on the game and it's hardly relevant (I mean in a tentatively objective criticism kind of way). Nate doesn't kill people, he kills enemies. These aren't real people, they don't have families, this is fiction, they're nothing but an obstacle in his path towards treasure hunting and spewing crazy ass lines of dialogue. He's an action movie hero. Action movie heroes are meant to kill bad people. There isn't much morality involved because let's be honest if there were you spent the whole game thinking about the shit you've done and oh my God the humanities. Nothing against Spec Ops: The Line, but I don't want every game out there to be about this shit. It's implied he's the hero not because he's handsome, not because he's affable, not because he's a white folk (LMAO), but because the story is about him overcoming odds. The enemies are just that. Odds.

I think the main problem with Uncharted is how realistic the depiction of the Characters in the cutscenes is. And I don't just mean graphically. All the cutscenes basically depict a realistic world with human characters, not Cartoon characters. The history matches the real world (Sir Francis Drake, etc.). The dialogues are grounded and well written and not schlocky or over the top.

This is what makes the ensuing massacres so grating. It would be much less of a problem, if the cutscenes depicted the characters as much more over the top and cartoony and the writing was way more schlocky.

I agree that the explicit term ludonarrative dissonance might be misapplied in this case. Maybe another term should be invented for it. But I still think what I described above is a definitive problem of the Uncharted games.

That's a fair point, but I think the violence in these games are inevitable when you consider the genre. It happens more often because a game is longer than a movie or something like that, so you're bound to repeat the main idea much more.

Ludonarrative dissonance as applied to Uncharted is a critique that was focused mainly on the second game, at least as I recall it. This is because Uncharted 2's ending specifically draws attention to it by having the villain say "You're no different from me! How many men have you killed, just today?" and then Nathan is moved by this and is unable to kill him, instead leaving him to the Yeti monsters to finish off, as if that was some kind of mercy that makes him the bigger man.

Frankly, the scene made no sense regardless of which reading of Drake you take. If Drake was there to stop an evil warlord getting the power, and therefore morally justified, he should have shot him. If you think Drake is just a heartless plunderer, he should have shot him. In either case Drake has shown no signs of hesitating to kill these people before; as the villain says, he has indeed killed countless people that day alone.

The game also opens with the scene where Drake tells everyone he doesn't like guns and doesn't want to take it into the opening mission. Not wanting to kill civilian security guards makes sense, but this whole "I don't like guns" thing is divorced from the ease with which he picks them up and starts slaughtering later on.

If you're unwilling to take criticism for your character killing a lot of people, maybe don't draw attention to it in your own story.

Yeah the ending was not that well written and the no guns thing was not a great way to implement a mechanic, but Uncharted games were never much about being too clever. I don't think either example really fits what ludonarrative dissonance would be. In the ending, I thought he was leaving the dude behind to a fate worse than death and the beginning of the game was before he went to prison, right? Maybe he grew biter. I don't know, I don't need much to justify shooting folks up in a videogame, but I don't think the game ever tries to tell a story that doesn't match what you character does. The games aren't about pacifism, or being a universally great guy, or thinking hard about your actions and the consequences of them. There's no disconnect.

It's fair to criticize a game for the excessive violence or something, I mean I don't agree but it's a free world and we all can have our opinions. However, it doesn't make the ludonarrative dissonance concept applicable, the themes in the story absolutely fit what you actually do on the game. You're going on an adventure and holy shit there's bad guys better shoot them before they shoot you. And they're bad guys so it's okay. Why are they bad? Because in this work of fiction is established that they're bad. I think about all of them as potential child molesters who didn't have enough screen time to get that character development. Is that shallow? Possibly, but there's no dissonance.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

But isn't it possible that it's good in one situation and not the other? You know, surviving in a dead city filled with lunatics vs. an economic system for a healthy society. That's not inherently contradictory.

I guess if you're expecting every facet of the game to 100% enforce the same themes then it doesn't really hold together. Bioshock definitely could have used some kind of comeuppance for Jack if you continue to gather ADAM with reckless abandon (I don't think the bad ending is really it) and more opportunities for being altruistic.

So the philosophical underpinning of Bioshock is "Objectivism is necessary in a zombie apocalypse"? Seems like a bizarre theme, no?

The reality is that, taken as a whole, Bioshock (which was manufactured by people) works to justify Objectivism. Every element of the gameplay works to rationalize Objectivism even though the game is (nominally) opposed to it, to the point that you can pretty easily argue that it is in favor of radical self-interest. That's the dissonance: A direct thematic clash between the game's narrative and what's actually happening in the game.

I do agree that Hocking's criticism was misplaced, insofar as he acts as though Bioshock is attempting to be a serious, insightful narrative on Objectivism and human nature. And not, you know, a loose rewrite of System Shock 2 that hastily touches on some Big Ideas™ without ever really talking about them.

 

[Unai]

The Souls games are really vague about this (and about a lot of things, so they also say things like "time and space is weird" or "it's a dream"). It doesn't hold up with much thought, because there's a number of rules or scenarios where it doesn't quite fit. In the Dark Souls games (especially Dark Souls 1) you should be going hollow (something of a true death) relatively quickly depending on the number of times you "die". Humanity is a mechanic in a game too, but it has no influence on whether your character will suffer the fate most Undead in the story face. You do become more "undead" looking, but that's simultaneously acknowledging the hollow process while not committing to it.

That's not right. Dying and going hollow are not intrinsically linked. You go hollow when you give up or when you lack purpose. There are a lot of NPCs that go hollow in human form or without dying a lot.

These two things are somewhat liked because if you die a lot you are more likely to give up, just that.

Let's frame it like this: Many characters are or eventually enter a state of despair because they are the verge of going hollow, which is effectively death or a fate worse than death. The world itself is in a state of decay. On the other hand, your character doesn't decay at all, you merely become stronger and stronger, and this is despite you running head first into the mechanic which accelerates decay - "death". You can run out of humanity, souls, and look like a corpse like all the hollows you defeat along the way, but you are pretty much as mentally sound as you were when you left the asylum. The hollowing process only really makes sense with a perma-death system, which means we loop back to the same old problem of fail-states.

Also, there are other NPCs that are quite strong and not hollows, Solaire being the poster child of that in Dark Souls 1. It's not something specific to the player.

 

[Kalentan]

Honestly I hate Ludonarrative Dissonance.

It's just a dead end for gaming for me. If all games where to make sure that Ludonarrative Dissonance wasn't a problem, we'd start to have less variety in gaming than we would. Cause developers would feel the need to make similar stories if they want to have a similar type of gameplay.

Basically go away, Ludonarrative Dissonance. Really hope it doesn't make a come back.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Honestly I hate Ludonarrative Dissonance.

It's just a dead end for gaming for me. If all games where to make sure that Ludonarrative Dissonance wasn't a problem, we'd start to have less variety in gaming than we would. Cause developers would feel the need to make similar stories if they want to have a similar type of gameplay.

Basically go away, Ludonarrative Dissonance. Really hope it doesn't make a come back.

This is an incredibly abstract take on the matter. One, why does the possibility of considering and addressing a particular thought of criticism obligate all works to address it? This same kind of dissection of dissonance is, again, at the very root of works that have defined genres by addressing the dissonance found in previous works.

Second, why would it necessarily make developers craft similar stories based on similar gameplay, anymore than games already do naturally? Third person action games are regularly noted for relying on established formulas for how third person action games, with trigger based aiming, firing, a crouch function that sticks to waist high walls, equipment management based on either the d-pad or a circular quick menu, the left button of the four face buttons will be reload, so forth. How is thinking about the way in which mechanics do or not gel with the story going to be anymore limiting than basic convention is?

 

[Kalentan]

This is an incredibly abstract take on the matter. One, why does the possibility of considering and addressing a particular thought of criticism obligate all works to address it? This same kind of dissection of dissonance is, again, at the very root of works that have defined genres by addressing the dissonance found in previous works.

Second, why would it necessarily make developers craft similar stories based on similar gameplay, anymore than games already do naturally? Third person action games are regularly noted for relying on established formulas for how third person action games, with trigger based aiming, firing, a crouch function that sticks to waist high walls, equipment management based on either the d-pad or a circular quick menu, the left button of the four face buttons will be reload, so forth. How is thinking about the way in which mechanics do or not gel with the story going to be anymore limiting than basic convention is?

On your first point, I'm not saying all works would address it but I fear an opposite backlash. Like the first backlash had this fade away but if enough people start yelling about it, Developers could feel like they need to do it. When they want to, consumers voices can be quite powerful.

On the second point, it would be more limiting because things like tone and story would most likely need to be similar if one would want to avoid this. If someone makes a game that involves lots of killing in a Third Person Shooter, then obviously they will now need to address the killing. This would then lead to many developers addressing this in a similar manner and everything starts to become samey.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Mercenaries & pirates who kill ruthlessly & no questions asked for money are bad people. I don't really see how much worse they could make the enemies, except making them, like, rape little children or something... I mean, starting from Uncharted 1, the game starts with pirates opening fire on Nathan & Elena and then trying to board their little boat & get their findings, no questions asked or warnings given, then they shoot their plane down without any provocation, and then they, again, shoot at sight immediately when they see Nathan after he starts exploring the island. These are not some army or UN soldiers just working a regular military job for some government who are ambushed & slaughtered by Nathan unprovoked. They are out to kill a lot of people at sight (not just Nathan, they completely destroy that village in Uncharted 2 etc.), which is obvious from the very first confrontations in each game.

Besides, by the end all the stuff Nathan does is for Indiana Jones like greater good to prevent great evil from spreading. They may start as selfish adventures for riches promised but they turn into fights of survival and by the end all of them (except 4?) are about preventing the unarguably bad/evil guys from getting their hands on some pretty horrible stuff that would lead to much destruction & chaos in the world if taken from their desolate locations to civilization.





Humor is a coping mechanism. Lots of people joke in more or less inappropriate situations. I think Nathan's comments/attitudes before confrontations are a clearer implication of his character. He isn't all "oh jolly, enemy soldiers/mercenaries, it's gonna be fun blowing their brains off", but more like "for fuck's sake, they are here too?" A lot of... situations in Uncharted start as stealth segments. It isn't until the enemies see/become aware of Nathan that shooting & killing becomes a thing.

Yeah, I really don't see why people are humanizing the mooks in Uncharted or claiming Nate is the aggressor, when he's the one who gets attacked on sight every single time.

The whole framing of Nate as some sort of bloodthirsty maniac who attacks innocent people unprovoked is really absurd. I mean sure, the game is lazy in making all the mercs automatically 100% hostile at all times so that Nate is justified in shooting back, but... yeah.

 

[dlauv]

Many many games don't really have ludonarrative dissonance at all. Many shooters even, and many narratively driven shooters at that.

Jumping through a lot of hoops to protect ND's sacred cow, which doesn't need protecting.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

On your first point, I'm not saying all works would address it but I fear an opposite backlash. Like the first backlash had this fade away but if enough people start yelling about it, Developers could feel like they need to do it. When they want to, consumers voices can be quite powerful.

On the second point, it would be more limiting because things like tone and story would most likely need to be similar if one would want to avoid this. If someone makes a game that involves lots of killing in a Third Person Shooter, then obviously they will now need to address the killing. This would then lead to many developers addressing this in a similar manner and everything starts to become samey.

On the first point again, well I suppose that's an issue down to whether or not one considers such considerations to be a problem, so onto the second point...

I think you kinda underestimate the ways in which dissonance can be potentially addressed. I mean, as has come up in the thread, the amount of people you kill as Nathan Drake is egregious because of his specific character and the general perception of him. I'd actually argue that specific kind of dissonance in that genre is actually the exception rather than the rule, because in many instances games already try to create handwaves for this stuff, or factor it into the general setting. Most often you're a soldier or special forces unit that's expected to be pitted against waves of enemies because you're literally up against an enemy army, or large gangs, or whatever else. As Riposte touched on, any subsequent issue with that is less (ludonarrative) dissonance, and more a general distaste for the commonality of killing as a method of progression in video games, and that's a whole other conversation.

The problem of such dissonance exists because of the character they made the avatar already, and there's not even a set way of how one might address it if trying to address it in subsequent entries or games inspired by it. If choosing gameplay, then perhaps they would focus more on the puzzle and acrobatic elements, than outright combat. If choosing to alter the story to accommodate the style of game, perhaps a more particular lens would actually be placed on what sort of character would be willing to kill so many and be unfazed by it. Even that latter option isn't necessarily that limited in terms of what protagonist could be made, with obvious archetypes being the troubled but resilient soul, or the open but oddly charming madman.

I honestly do not believe that trying to address such dissonance is as necessarily limiting as you believe it to be, even if it was required or expected - which it isn't. Same way addressing fan demands for more female protagonists or particular styles of gameplay won't necessarily break existing franchises or limit new ones; it's another consideration, another tool in the box.

 

[Alienous]

Many many games don't really have ludonarrative dissonance at all. Many shooters even, and many narratively driven shooters at that.

Jumping through a lot of hoops to protect ND's sacred cow, which doesn't need protecting.

Exactly.

A Call of Duty protagonist will kill more people than anyone really could, but that's one dissonant element that most games in the genre share. The only explanation as to why Nathan Drake gets brought up again and again is that the ludonarrative dissonance in Uncharted games is greater.

As much as Neil Druckmann dismisses it verbally his actions seem intended to alleviate it. Things like an increased focus on stealth, and less frequent combat encounters, or even the entirety of The Last of Us where Joel's use and attitude towards violence is the same in cutscenes as in gameplay.

Uncharted does poorly when it comes to handling ludonarrative dissonance - it's a specific flaw of those titles. But it doesn't apply to that great a degree in most games, Uncharted is just an egregious example.

 

[More_Badass]

Exactly.

A Call of Duty protagonist will kill more people than anyone really could, but that's one dissonant element that most games in the genre share. The only explanation as to why Nathan Drake gets brought up again and again is that the ludonarrative dissonance in Uncharted games is greater.

As much as Neil Druckmann dismisses it his actions seem intended to alleviate it. Things like an increased focus on stealth, and less frequent combat encounters, or even the entirety of The Last of Us where Joel's use and attitude towards violence is the same in cutscenes as in gameplay.

Uncharted does poorly when it comes to handling ludonarrative dissonance - it's a specific flaw of those titles. But it doesn't apply to that great a degree most games, Uncharted is just an egregious example.

I think it applies to more games than you might think. Most of those are shooters though. Another example off the top of my head is Far Cry 3/4 (but mainly 3) and how you become an outpost clearing jungle warfare master the second you get into the main game while the story frames you as a regular person struggling with the brutality of the killing and loss of their humanity needed to survive

 

[Boombloxer]

I'm actually interested to know if this really has any impact whatsoever. Do companies sell less games if their games or maybe sequels seemed to have this issue? Do gamers avoid buying such games that are known/expected to have it? If the answer is No to both then I don't see it as an issue, and even if it's an issue I don't think they would bother fixing that

Nope. Its a very small, vocal subset that thinks it's a problem and an even smaller subset that won't a buy a game because of it. The vast majority don't care.

And I'm one of them. It's an interesting topic that ultimately goes nowhere, and a lot of that is because many people view it as a silly argument that has no impact on sales, acclaim or longevity. And until that changes, that's where it will stay.

 

[Trojita]

People really seem hung up on the Uncharted example.

Ludonarrative covers a lot of stuff.

In the FFXIV mmo, at a certain point in the Heavensward post patch content there is an Olympics tier event between Allied forces that is supposed to rally one specific countries forces if they manage a win and bolster the camaraderie around the whole alliance. The event occurs in the middle of nowhere with barely that many people attending and no real spectators. We are told the army will hear that we won and that will bolster their resolve.

 

[Lionel Richie]

I think it applies to more games than you might think. Most of those are shooters though. Another example off the top of my head is Far Cry 3/4 (but mainly 3) and how you become an outpost clearing jungle warfare master the second you get into the main game while the story frames you as a regular person struggling with the brutality of the killing and loss of their humanity needed to survive

That's because you suffer for the people that you care about and don't give a fuck about people trying to kill you. The people you kill in Far Cry shouldn't be seen as people (since they aren't considering they don't exist) but as enemies. It's why James Bond gets sad when something bad happens to M but kills other dudes like it was breakfast. Because the other guys aren't multidimensional people, they're just obstacles.

This isn't IMO ludonarrative dissonance, just a simple execution of the action hero mentality (you kill the enemies like they were flies, cry over your friends/girlfriends/people you give a fuck about). The story frames you as a survivor struggling to survive and losing your friends and going batshit crazy over it, how you play the game isn't at all dissimilar to that.

In the FFXIV mmo, at a certain point in the Heavensward post patch content there is an Olympics tier event between Allied forces that is supposed to rally one specific countries forces if they manage a win and bolster the camaraderie around the whole alliance. The event occurs in the middle of nowhere with barely that many people attending and no real spectators. We are told the army will hear that we won and that will bolster their resolve.

That isn't ludonarrative dissonance, that's a poorly written part that depends on you suspending disbelief.

 

[More_Badass]

Nope. Its a very small, vocal subset that thinks it's a problem and an even smaller subset that won't a buy a game because of it. The vast majority don't care.

And I'm one of them. It's an interesting topic that ultimately goes nowhere, and a lot of that is because many people view it as a silly argument that has no impact on sales, acclaim or longevity. And until that changes, that's where it will stay.

It's not about sales, acclaim, or longevity. It's about discussing games on a deeper level and discussing game design. The same way that discussing how framing and editing in film adds or tells the story has nothing to do with not being able to enjoy the movie, but is about a maturing eye and discussion regarding the medium

 

[Unai]

Could the final Civil War confront in Skyrim also be an example of LD? I mean, it's supposed to my a huge war between half the country against the other half, but when it happens it looks more like if some guys from my classroom were fighting the guys from the room next door.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

It's not just about the violence, it's that Nate isn't even really the 'good guy' half the time, he's just as much an armed thief as everyone else who wants the treasure for himself and is prepared to kill for it, it's just implied that's he's the 'hero' because he's a handsome, affable white bloke with likeable friends that is the player character. The comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones works as a matinee fantasy adventure but doesn't really work in terms of character motivation for the level of violence deployed, when Luke and Indiana are outmatched and trying to hinder the overwhelming powerful evil forces of their respective universes, rather than just being a thief with a motivation of competing with them for personal gain. Indiana kills dozens because the Nazis shouldn't have phenomenal cosmic power. Nate kills hundreds because treasure should be on his mantelpiece rather than some other mercenary.

Actually, that's completely wrong.

Nate sets out on his treasure hunts with the mindset you mentioned, but the main nemesis of the plot always reveal some overwhelmingly evil scheme (El Dorado virus, the Cintamani elixir, the Aram hallucinogen ...etc...) that thrusts Nate and Co in the offensive; whereas earlier in each game's story Nate only reacts violently when cornered.

Druckmann's rebuttal is solid in that you have to suspend your moral analysis in a pulpy reality like this for the sake of the story.

 

[Patch13]

Could the final Civil War confront in Skyrim also be an example of LD? I mean, it's supposed to my a huge war between half the country against the other half, but when it happens it looks more like if some guys from my classroom were fighting the guys from the room next door.

I think that's more akin to seeing the zipper on a rubber suit in a monster movie, or noticing that the stunt double's wig is slipping in a shot. It's a budgetary or technical limitation of the medium, rather than a conflict between the intentional aspects of the narrative and game design.

 

[Sande]

So the philosophical underpinning of Bioshock is "Objectivism is necessary in a zombie apocalypse"? Seems like a bizarre theme, no?

The reality is that, taken as a whole, Bioshock (which was manufactured by people) works to justify Objectivism. Every element of the gameplay works to rationalize Objectivism even though the game is (nominally) opposed to it, to the point that you can pretty easily argue that it is in favor of radical self-interest. That's the dissonance: A direct thematic clash between the game's narrative and what's actually happening in the game.

I do agree that Hocking's criticism was misplaced, insofar as he acts as though Bioshock is attempting to be a serious, insightful narrative on Objectivism and human nature. And not, you know, a loose rewrite of System Shock 2 that hastily touches on some Big Ideas™ without ever really talking about them.

I just don't think the objectivism angle works at all regarding gameplay. In the story it's about the ultimately unsustainable economic system of Rapture. I don't think the gameplay undermines that in any way.

And yeah, you can't have an altruistic approach when it comes to what are essentially zombies that can't be negotiated or cooperated with. It's kill or be killed, that's it. With the one rational, reasonable person you come across (Tenenbaum), cooperation and altruism are rewarded.

 

[Wulfram]

Exactly.

A Call of Duty protagonist will kill more people than anyone really could, but that's one dissonant element that most games in the genre share. The only explanation as to why Nathan Drake gets brought up again and again is that the ludonarrative dissonance in Uncharted games is greater.

I would argue a Call of Duty protagonist killing lots of people isn't dissonant. Its not realistic, but that's not the same thing. It thematically fits the story. You're a bad ass soldier fighting a war, you kill a lot of the enemy.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Actually, that's completely wrong.

Nate sets out on his treasure hunts with the mindset you mentioned, but the main nemesis of the plot always reveal some overwhelmingly evil scheme (El Dorado virus, the Cintamani elixir, the Aram hallucinogen ...etc...) that thrusts Nate and Co in the offensive; whereas earlier in each game's story Nate only reacts violently when cornered.

Druckmann's rebuttal is solid in that you have to suspend your moral analysis in a pulpy reality like this for the sake of the story.

Exactly. But if you want to criticize the game for its violence, sure, that's fine. But I think shoehorning a concept that doesn't really apply to make your analysis seem deeper because the term used sounds cool doesn't exactly add deepness to the discussion.

 

[Boombloxer]

It's not about sales, acclaim, or longevity. It's about discussing games on a deeper level and discussing game design. The same way that discussing how framing and editing in film adds or tells the story has nothing to do with not being able to enjoy the movie, but is about a maturing eye and discussion regarding the medium

Sure, and if you want that to ultimately lead to better games, you have to ultimately prove that it's worth it.
And for many, it falls into the "who cares" category.

You can have a mature discussion about multiple things that probably would impact any of the areas mentioned, but this isn't one of them. So it ultimately goes nowhere because of that.

 

[Trojita]

That isn't ludonarrative dissonance, that's a poorly written part that depends on you suspending disbelief.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation

A loosely equivalent technical term for this is "ludonarrative dissonance", a term coined by Clint Hocking (a former employee of LucasArts). "Ludonarrative" is the portion of the story told through the gameplay ("ludo" comes from the Latin word meaning "play" or "game"), so ludonarrative dissonance is when there are logical inconsistencies between what is conveyed through the gameplay and what is conveyed through the story, or when the gameplay is presenting one message while the story is presenting another

Seems to fit?