Why not just postwrite about all those interactive elements instead of a vague catch-all meaningless monstrosity like "gameplay" ?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
We need to kill gameplay says Ex-People Can Fly dev
- Thread starter BlackJace
- Start date
Tears For Fears
Banned
Santa Monica should hire this dude, seems right up their alley.
You make such great posts
Hari Seldon
Member
He might be right for the games that he is talking about. Third person action games and single player FPSs. However the more you remove gameplay, the more you better have a killer fucking story to back it up. Not some typical shit video game plot. More and more I have abandoned these type of games and returned to my roots of the strategy genre because the emergent gameplay is simply more exciting to me than a scripted third person game. So I guess what I'm saying is that his theory is worth a shot. There is room for all types of games. You just better have HBO quality writing to back it up.
Because that implies that playing isn't the most important thing you do with a game.
Net_Wrecker
Member
This is a terrible philosophy, and one that will drive me away from the industry if it takes off. You don't need to cut out "regular gameplay" to make a "deep emotional experience," and any dev that thinks in such a manner isn't talented enough to attempt or pull off storytelling through gameplay so they fall back on ridiculous comments like this. I'm not saying there isn't room for adventure games, or "interactive story" experiences like David Cage's stuff, but those are certainly not the only way to make a game that resonates with someone on a deeper level.
Hell, narration, internal monologues, environmental storytelling, dynamic use of the camera, in game active conversations, etc. are just a few alternative methods of delivering a story that can provide a deeper experience AND retain normal gameplay but are often swept aside in favor of lazy cutscenes and endless exposition. Just because the industry is stuck on the CoD train or trying to make "playable movies" doesn't mean we've reached the peak of storytelling in videogames by simply "killing gameplay."
Hell, narration, internal monologues, environmental storytelling, dynamic use of the camera, in game active conversations, etc. are just a few alternative methods of delivering a story that can provide a deeper experience AND retain normal gameplay but are often swept aside in favor of lazy cutscenes and endless exposition. Just because the industry is stuck on the CoD train or trying to make "playable movies" doesn't mean we've reached the peak of storytelling in videogames by simply "killing gameplay."
There's no need to kill anything in a broad scale just because a few devs and players dislike it. Clearly gamey games sell tons, get good reviews and are enjoyed by people who play them so what's the issue again?
I enjoy all types of games, even the cinematic variety, but as far as I'm concerned there is no one true way to do it and even if there had to be, I'd choose the game-game over the movie-game hands down.
I enjoy all types of games, even the cinematic variety, but as far as I'm concerned there is no one true way to do it and even if there had to be, I'd choose the game-game over the movie-game hands down.
I think we are 100% on the same page. Your points are good to reiterate though.
I agree. But the industry uses whatever terms sell the most & interactive stories wont sell to anyone over 13 if they are called interactive stories.
Uh, no it doesn't. There is nothing else you do with a game -- the "play" in "gameplay" is just redundant. It being a game already implies that playing is the most important thing by merely being a game. Furthermore, how in the world is a precise use of language in regards to the various elements of a game going to diminish the importance of "play" as opposed to "gameplay" ??? If anything it's the opposite; "gameplay" turns all the elements that involve playing a game into one little box next to "sound" and "art design" and so on, as if those other things are equal to it, which is why you get people who defend games in ways such as: "This game had terrible gameplay but the art design was amazing" -- what they really want to say is "This game was terrible but the art design was amazing."
A year ago I inspired a friend to make a topic about this terrible bad word and participated in it myself, I think we covered pretty much all the bases. Check it out.
I feel the industry says "Hey, what Story hasn't been told, or hasn't been done in a while." then they say "Hmm, what genre of gameplay sells the best..." then they merge the two together. And Every 2 years you get a whole bunch of new games with similar themes and gameplay.
That's what I did some time ago.
I enjoy interactive fiction like 999 and other graphic adventures/visual novels but I don't consider them videogames for the most part.
Exactly. Same thing that makes Nintendo games good.
I love movies. I'm sure a lot of you do as well, but I don't need every game to be Heavy Rain. I liked HR as a unique kind of experience in gaming, but I don't really think gaming is at it's most powerful form when it's that usually.
Gaming can be anything from a pro-sport like feeling to a story driven experience, but at the end of the day, if the gameplay isn't good or/and unique, then it's going to fail. People don't want second-rate 12 hour movies. They want to play something that's fun and engaging. I want to learn more about the Elder Scrolls world because of what I do in it, and I want to see how I'm affecting it. Basically, narrative can be a huge factor, but if it's the only thing there, and I'm not having fun because I'm affecting a world or a universe, then why even call it a game at that point? Why not just make it a movie, a TV show, or a book?
I understand the attraction of wanting to make an interactive storytelling experience that's as accessible as a film or tv show, but I feel like this guy's theories that gameplay must be cut to achieve deeply emotional storytelling in games are totally off the mark. Why must all these devs adhere to such single minded "Ghost Dog" ideologies? I also understand that you need to have a guiding vision for you're company moving forward, but this is as stupid as all the "(fill in the blank) is the future" proclamations we keep getting.
PsihoPerihelion
Member
9/10 Needs more ADS and set-pieces for perfect 10
I came in here to say almost exactly that, but I want to add that the way Journey tells its story is (potentially) much more powerful than what the ex-People-Can-Fly dev seems to allude to.
I take the base of my understanding of the matter from Jesper Juuls's Half Real. A game being "a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome... and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable."
And gameplay is the interactivity with the game. The bolded is where a lot of games fall short. There are a wide number of interactions in games that we do because we intrinsically find them to be enjoyable. We place different (emotional) values on these different outcomes/states but without a quantifiable outcome those states are only superficially related to the game and it's systems. As stated in a post above me, exploring states in an Adventure Game isn't gameplay if those outcomes aren't quantified. You made hard choices about who lives and who dies, who eats and who starves in Walking Dead? Great, but if the only thing that comes out of your choices is the next branch in the story and your new experiences/emotions then that aint gameplay.
Talking to an NPC solely beacause you like his/her text isn't gameplay. Walking around town with these NPCs and planting trees just because it will make the town look better isn't gameplay. Writting letters to Jay the sparrow because he seems like a cool guy isn't gameplay. In Animal Crossing, most of what you do isn't judged or quantified isn't in slightest. Most of what you do in Animal Crossing isn't gameplay. Same goes for a character creator in a fighting game, to a level creator in a platforming game, to recreating the Death Star out of blocks in Minecraft(with flying/mineral mods to avoid all that platforming and mining).
Confidence Man
Member
Surprised to see so many people disagree. This is basically what Journey is.
Riposte
Member
Journey sucks. At the same time though, it has "gameplay", just in the form of stripped down mechanics and no intelligent level design.
I think you misunderstand, it's the opposite of what Journey is.
IF you're making a story focused game, well, he has a point. Fewer things are more frustrating than trying to progress and see where the story goes, only to be slowed down by monotony or tough battles/sections. But the two don't need to be mutually exclusive, a nice bit of strong story that takes a back seat to gameplay can work shockingly well, as Super Metroid, SMT: Nocturne, and Demon's Souls/Dark Souls has shown.
I wrote an essay on this a few days ago, but I'll summarize it here for those who haven't got the time to read it (it's about two pages long).
The key problem is that people assume that video games must be "games," when really, "video games" is a bad name that doesn't really encompass all the things that the medium can provide. If we limit ourselves to thinking "oh, well, these games must all feature some form of structured play" (Gameplay), or "oh, they all need to be fun," we can't really see the medium evolved.
The medium we call "video games" also produces things like The Stanley Parable, which is more of an interactive, digital essay than anything else.
It's not a collection of games, it's a new kind of communication medium, up there with books, television, film, radio, and whatever else have you. To call them "games" is somewhat reductive; it's a holdover from the days of Pong, when all the medium could do was games, and it really limits our ability to expand. The medium is actually larger than just games, though fun and enjoyment are definitely a part of that.
So... yeah, we do need to kill the dependency on "gameplay," or, more specifically, the need for the combat loop.
I can't stand people who think that games could, and should, be nothing but "toys," just as I can't stand people who argue that games all need to be serious artistic business. They're a huge, broad field. They can be anything.
The key problem is that people assume that video games must be "games," when really, "video games" is a bad name that doesn't really encompass all the things that the medium can provide. If we limit ourselves to thinking "oh, well, these games must all feature some form of structured play" (Gameplay), or "oh, they all need to be fun," we can't really see the medium evolved.
The medium we call "video games" also produces things like The Stanley Parable, which is more of an interactive, digital essay than anything else.
It's not a collection of games, it's a new kind of communication medium, up there with books, television, film, radio, and whatever else have you. To call them "games" is somewhat reductive; it's a holdover from the days of Pong, when all the medium could do was games, and it really limits our ability to expand. The medium is actually larger than just games, though fun and enjoyment are definitely a part of that.
So... yeah, we do need to kill the dependency on "gameplay," or, more specifically, the need for the combat loop.
I can't stand people who think that games could, and should, be nothing but "toys," just as I can't stand people who argue that games all need to be serious artistic business. They're a huge, broad field. They can be anything.
Awwww, you did it now son.
greycolumbus
The success of others absolutely infuriates me.
Having recently played Uncharted 3, I can't really agree with his point. That game in its first 2 hours or so has left me completely detached. I could have done without some of the sloppy gameplay, sure, but then its not really a game, and time and money could be better spent on a more focused project.
I think there's value to gameplay. My favorite moments in Red Dead are spread out across hunting, treasure finding, random encounters, and traveling. In Red Dead you can fuck up the simple act of traveling the map due to the game's hostile NPCs and animals.
I think there's value to gameplay. My favorite moments in Red Dead are spread out across hunting, treasure finding, random encounters, and traveling. In Red Dead you can fuck up the simple act of traveling the map due to the game's hostile NPCs and animals.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I think that he and his games can go and get fucked.
And this is fucking nonsense too.
If you want To sell interactive experience, a digital essay or whatever pseudo-auteur crap you want to call it, then pitch and market it as such. Let the market dictate if there is demand for that or not.
but don't insult people's intelligence by saying a videogame should not have the basic prinicple of play within it.
it just pisses me off the pretentiousness of these arguements. Nobody has anything against "interactive experiences" but the problem is that they are being forced on people who want videogames.
not only that but I don't like the insinuation we are somehow cavemen, to want our entertainment to you know, entertain first and foremost.
If I want a passive "experience" there are much better equipped mediums for that, mediums that don't seem as embarrassed about their identity as videogames. Funny how filmmakers never feels the need to "evolve" The medium into visual books.
The growth of developers who want to be filmmakers is the biggest case of retardant penis envy in this industry.
Femmeworth
Banned
I actually think it's a fair point.He famously reversed that later on. Why do you think Rage and Doom 3 had all that story and audio log?. Unfortunately id isnt very good at it.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I really wouldn't say adventure games are just "story".
Part of it requires a working setting and decent character interaction. You're not just going to tell a story visually, you have to make the environment, the "unimportant" dialog, the background, etc. to work well. Though of course due to the nature of the game, good writing is crucial.
Part of it requires a working setting and decent character interaction. You're not just going to tell a story visually, you have to make the environment, the "unimportant" dialog, the background, etc. to work well. Though of course due to the nature of the game, good writing is crucial.
It's not an art vs. fun debate.
People that understand a medium know that you have to use the tools of the medium (I.E. Gameplay) to evoke an emotion. I think that games that actually use gameplay to make the player feel a certain way are far more powerful than just using a cutscene. But I mean, that's not to say that a cutscene can't make you feel an emotion either. It's just dumb to say that we have to eliminate one of them to "tell a better story".
The argument here is so horrible, because what he really wants are movies. Movies ARE a great way to tell a story, but if you feel like they're the only way to tell a story, you should be making a movie.
People that understand a medium know that you have to use the tools of the medium (I.E. Gameplay) to evoke an emotion. I think that games that actually use gameplay to make the player feel a certain way are far more powerful than just using a cutscene. But I mean, that's not to say that a cutscene can't make you feel an emotion either. It's just dumb to say that we have to eliminate one of them to "tell a better story".
The argument here is so horrible, because what he really wants are movies. Movies ARE a great way to tell a story, but if you feel like they're the only way to tell a story, you should be making a movie.
Net_Wrecker
Member
And I find it funny that the moments he points to as standout moments aren't even what I recall from those games, or aren't points that help his argument.
Bioshock, First ten minutes. Nope. The first thing that comes to mind for me is the world building through environmental storytelling, and facing off against a Big Daddy.
Modern Warfare 2, No Russian. Nope. Not only was that "mission" terrible because of how obviously manipulative it was, it also had terrible build up, terrible pay off, and the non-interactivity of the whole thing is what made it collapse on itself. Had the player chose to not interact, you should've been killed right then and there. THAT would've interesting. Instead, you're just along for the ride regardless of what you do.
GTA, driving around listening to the radio. Self explanatory. How does DRIVING AROUND not constitute gameplay? Either you enjoy the driving mechanics, or you enjoy traveling around the world Rockstar has built listening music that really captures the era and/or creates a great atmosphere. Either way is emotion through gameplay.
Red Dead Redemption, riding into Mexico with that song. Nope. First of all it's nearly the same thing as the driving quote from GTA, and secondly RDR's lasting impression is the exploration and random events/animals in the world. Either that or the build up and ending of the game, all of which happen through gameplay.
Uncharted 3, stuck in the desert. Nope. How non-interactive the whole thing was actually grated on me, and how quickly you jump back into shooting guys afterwards actually TAKES AWAY for the whole thing. It just feels like 10 minutes wasted when there's no real consequence to that sequence.
Bioshock, First ten minutes. Nope. The first thing that comes to mind for me is the world building through environmental storytelling, and facing off against a Big Daddy.
Modern Warfare 2, No Russian. Nope. Not only was that "mission" terrible because of how obviously manipulative it was, it also had terrible build up, terrible pay off, and the non-interactivity of the whole thing is what made it collapse on itself. Had the player chose to not interact, you should've been killed right then and there. THAT would've interesting. Instead, you're just along for the ride regardless of what you do.
GTA, driving around listening to the radio. Self explanatory. How does DRIVING AROUND not constitute gameplay? Either you enjoy the driving mechanics, or you enjoy traveling around the world Rockstar has built listening music that really captures the era and/or creates a great atmosphere. Either way is emotion through gameplay.
Red Dead Redemption, riding into Mexico with that song. Nope. First of all it's nearly the same thing as the driving quote from GTA, and secondly RDR's lasting impression is the exploration and random events/animals in the world. Either that or the build up and ending of the game, all of which happen through gameplay.
Uncharted 3, stuck in the desert. Nope. How non-interactive the whole thing was actually grated on me, and how quickly you jump back into shooting guys afterwards actually TAKES AWAY for the whole thing. It just feels like 10 minutes wasted when there's no real consequence to that sequence.
Anyone who thinks that of the guy who made Painkiller and Bulletstorm is a terrible person.
You are a terrible person.
Exactly. Most of the non-technical complaints about Rage stemmed from the game not having a great story, even though it had nigh-flawless gameplay.
Nor does it need to be. Consider Dear Esther and The Stanley Parable. They're absolutely not games--they're something else entirely.
He seems to be using gameplay in a very specific context, though. Basically, "gameplay" is the combat loop. It's how you fight people or score points. He's basically arguing that people broaden their consideration of the way in which we interact with the medium. He's not arguing that we remove interactivity; he's arguing that we kill the concept of "gameplay" to allow us to focus on making games with better, more interesting/meaningful interactivity.
User Name Here
Member
So he wants to make interactive movies?
Aquamarine
Member
That's right...they're not video games. Neither are those horrid CG-I "games" they released back in the early-mid 90s.
legacyzero
Banned
Wat.
Its actually the exact opposite.
Thanks for playing.
Its actually the exact opposite.
Thanks for playing.
But they're still good, interesting things using the EXACT SAME MEDIUM (which we refer to as "video games"). And that's really the point here: the medium is bigger than just fun and games. There can be more, if we let it.
Dragon's Lair for everyone!
Serious answer though. I understand the desire to want more emotional and powerful experiences from games, and we as humans do get more out of it when we are observing (different from just watching) than we do when we are interacting and constantly controlling everything, but the idea presented just don't work with the medium is as a whole. As least not as how it's presented.
Perhaps the focus isn't on video games, but instead how to transform interactive movies or "guide games" like those virtual pets, Sims, Ganbare Neo Poke-Kun, Seaman, etc instead something more. This has been an excuse to refrence Ganbare Neo Poke-Kun, one of the best games few anyone has ever heard of.
Serious answer though. I understand the desire to want more emotional and powerful experiences from games, and we as humans do get more out of it when we are observing (different from just watching) than we do when we are interacting and constantly controlling everything, but the idea presented just don't work with the medium is as a whole. As least not as how it's presented.
Perhaps the focus isn't on video games, but instead how to transform interactive movies or "guide games" like those virtual pets, Sims, Ganbare Neo Poke-Kun, Seaman, etc instead something more. This has been an excuse to refrence Ganbare Neo Poke-Kun, one of the best games few anyone has ever heard of.
abacab driver
Banned
Surprising and disappointing to hear that from him.
I'll tell you why I think that your conclusion is false (and gameplay doesn't necessarily presuppose a combat loop), and the short answer is that if we pursue your suggestion of killing the dependency of gameplay to its extreme we'd end up with something that's more closely associated with (most likely) a movie and loses exactly that game-ness. But I would certainly be interested in reading your essay if you could PM a link to me.
MikeE21286
Member
wow...
Video games is a medium of it's own that happens to be under the same umbrella as whatever term ultimately gets used to describe something like Dear Ester. It's like the difference between a painting and a drawing. What you're describing is that umbrella.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I suspect the thing to remember is that the medium's broad so it's nearly impossible that more gamey stuff could be completely displaced, and interactivity is what makes them unique. Traditional gameplay's one way of being interactive, but there's also the QTE-type stuff in Heavy Rain, and choose your own story stuff in Bioware games and visual novels like 999 and Virtue's Last Reward that makes novels doing this stuff look clumsy in comparison. I actually feel that the stance you MUST have traditional gameplay is one of the most harmful things to growth, both in what companies decide to make, and worse yet what someone like Sony may decide may or may not be released at all. Hell, if anything trying to justify those as "games" is what's potentially most harmful, where they don't even try to be challenging or interesting in fear of alienating people.
More developers need to act upon the philosophy outliined in the OP. It will divide the market, and allow for indie games to thrive and cater to the people who value story experiences just as much as gameplay (me, for example). Video games have been around since the 70s, and visual fidelity is now rivaling real life. It is time.
I'm surprised that some people from GAF are so afraid of videogames changing in the name of maturity and actual substance outside of skilled videogaming. Both have their value, and the cinematic gameplay experiences that have dominated this generation (on the 360 and PS3, at least) were able to do so by more closely following the techniques outlined in Hollywood.
I'm surprised that some people from GAF are so afraid of videogames changing in the name of maturity and actual substance outside of skilled videogaming. Both have their value, and the cinematic gameplay experiences that have dominated this generation (on the 360 and PS3, at least) were able to do so by more closely following the techniques outlined in Hollywood.
Net_Wrecker
Member
Then he's saying it the wrong way. To argue that driving in GTA isn't actually gameplay because you aren't killing someone or scoring points is objectively wrong. He also argued that you can't die which is false. If you're driving recklessly, you will crash, and the car will blow up. Taking care to drive in a manner that keeps you alive is still gameplay.
It's like arguing that the tension building moments or dips in pacing of a shooter aren't gameplay because you aren't killing someone. In some cases, that may be true as you might be in a QTE, or watching a cutscene, or on the infamous "roller coaster" of a set piece, but in a perfect world, developers would use those lulls to get the narrative across in-game, or build atmosphere and anticipation for that next intense shootout. That's still gameplay, that's still storytelling, and those are concepts that can be used to make a "deep emotional experience" through "normal" means.
The argument that only non-traditional games are capable of providing strong narratives that players get attached to is one I can't agree with.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll