Kazuma Kiryu
Member
nope. we can't have both. /sarcasm
-
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
nope. we can't have both. /sarcasm
Certain video games evolving into a state where you cannot actively play them is not "actual substance".
ihearthawthats
Banned
this guy makes me think as if he's the mastermind behind the tomb raider reboot...
honestly, the article fails on the premise that he assumes:
1. deeply emotional experiences are great
2. that's what gamer's want
3. therefore, it's the primary goal for game design.
i think he's missing the big picture and that's the dynamic between gameplay and non-gameplay elements. yeah, if we look at mega man 2 we remember matrix style jumping through doors, the stage select screen, and the weapon get screen, but gameplay is ultimately the reason to keep playing it. from what the author is implying, it sounds like the objective to make a good mega man game is to then make it consist purely of a stage selector, then jumping through a door, and then getting a weapon, and not actually shooting things.
honestly, the article fails on the premise that he assumes:
1. deeply emotional experiences are great
2. that's what gamer's want
3. therefore, it's the primary goal for game design.
i think he's missing the big picture and that's the dynamic between gameplay and non-gameplay elements. yeah, if we look at mega man 2 we remember matrix style jumping through doors, the stage select screen, and the weapon get screen, but gameplay is ultimately the reason to keep playing it. from what the author is implying, it sounds like the objective to make a good mega man game is to then make it consist purely of a stage selector, then jumping through a door, and then getting a weapon, and not actually shooting things.
not that a game following this approach couldn't work, the author implies that it's something games in general should strive for, which i disagree. variety is good. for example, i'm a huge fan of both adventure games and fighting games. while i would love to see this approach used in adventure games, it would be stupid to apply it to a fighting game (although, it doesn't seem far off from doa5's mantra of cinematic fighting).confidence man said:
I don't know what this has to do with my post, I wasn't constricting what I said to traditional gameplay paradigms.
I don't like the seeming implication that a game doesn't evoke emotion merely by virtue it being played.
You know what's one of the biggest emotional responses I've ever had to a video game? When after several tries I finally defeated Ballos in Cave Story and completed the difficult and time-consuming Hell level. The feeling of triumph and satisfaction having finally become victorious preceded by the blood-boiling fast-paced hyper-aware anxiety as I watched the final boss's HP bar slowly twiddle down to nothing as my own health was in a similar state, attempting to manipulate the player character with full knowledge of the fact that one more mistake, one little slipup means complete failure and the need to restart from the very beginning of the area. I only need to hold on for just a little longer, just play the game properly for a few seconds longer, and I win. Otherwise, it's just another failure, another attempt where the only progress is in my own skill and knowledge. But this was no failure. I did beat the game. All the hours I spent on it led to this one moment, this feeling of victory. I won.
Good luck getting that type of emotional response from a movie or a book. But hey, if people want to use the medium to do nothing more than create a vague facsimile of stuff that passive entertainment has been doing for thousands of years, be my guest. It's their loss ultimately.
You know what's one of the biggest emotional responses I've ever had to a video game? When after several tries I finally defeated Ballos in Cave Story and completed the difficult and time-consuming Hell level. The feeling of triumph and satisfaction having finally become victorious preceded by the blood-boiling fast-paced hyper-aware anxiety as I watched the final boss's HP bar slowly twiddle down to nothing as my own health was in a similar state, attempting to manipulate the player character with full knowledge of the fact that one more mistake, one little slipup means complete failure and the need to restart from the very beginning of the area. I only need to hold on for just a little longer, just play the game properly for a few seconds longer, and I win. Otherwise, it's just another failure, another attempt where the only progress is in my own skill and knowledge. But this was no failure. I did beat the game. All the hours I spent on it led to this one moment, this feeling of victory. I won.
Good luck getting that type of emotional response from a movie or a book. But hey, if people want to use the medium to do nothing more than create a vague facsimile of stuff that passive entertainment has been doing for thousands of years, be my guest. It's their loss ultimately.
You're there. You're emotionally invested. And you're guiding the story forward and making active decisions. That's more invested interaction than any other media artform out there.
You've never read a good book? Watched a good film? Listened to a great song, or speech? I can be just as, if not more, emotionally invested in those things than I can a video game. There's a reason we separate forms of media.
Going from emotional responses borne directly from your actions and the consequences to your actions to responses borne from idly spectating on situations largely beyond your control using techniques from passive entertainment to evoke some predetermined emotional state is what I would call a regression.
It's like you want to be the guy watching your favorite football team win the game as opposed to BEING the football player himself.
Guess I jumped to some bad conclusions then, my bad.
It's not that gameplay needs to be cut, it's that our definition of what gameplay is needs to change. When people say gameplay they usually refer to mechanics like how's the combat or does the shooting feel good, but really gameplay is any aspect where the player has some way of interacting with the game. For example people say Assassin's Creed games have bad gameplay when there referring to the combat, but then say they love exploring and living in these wonderfully realized worlds; there both gameplay however.
I hate to say it, but he kind of has a point.
If you want to tell a deep and gripping narrative, the Gameplay is usually an obstacle. Just think of John Marston, who in my playthrough rather spend his time picking flowers/hunting/playing poker etc. than rescuing his family.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that gameplay and gripping story are exclusive, but it definitely helps to decide for one or the other.
Could be personal, I don't know, but I find that certain emotions tend to be done better by games than by movies/books. For example getting hit by three blue shells in a row in Mario Kart Wii had me more upset than any movie/book I can remember, a total stranger in Journey patiently waiting and helping me overcome an obstacle made me experience trust much stronger than any movie/book I can remember, I'm more scared of Amnesia than any horror/thriller movie I've seen.
Maybe I'm grasping, but with the example of Amnesia, you are actively playing a game. A game that plays so well in fact that it makes you forget that you are. Boom, there's your emotional investment/immersion.
I understand where he's coming from but in my own experience I can name so many memorable gameplay moments. Off the top of my head I can think of moments from Half Life 1 and 2, Far Cry 2, Dishonored, Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood, GTA3 and 4, Forza, Burnout, and a lot of others that were spontaneous, unscripted, etc.
ihearthawthats
Banned
a narrative is only one way to invoke emotion. rpgs imo are a good example of how to balance narrative and gameplay. seeing the story of the espers is one thing, but getting to utilize them in battle makes it even better. yeah kefka is one evil mofo, but would it be just as emotional if you didn't actually get to fight him? when shadow comes and goes, hell yeah you want to put him in your party and slice some baddies up.
People of that "experience over gameplay" mindset would be writing novels or scripts for a living if they were really talented and could get a bit of attention in those fields.
The gameplay elements are what now and forever makes gaming its own unique artform and not sub-Hollywood blockbuster or sub-pre-teen cartoon trash.
That there's a lot of room for writing in video games to improve is entirely irrelevant to the gameplay aspects.
The gameplay elements are what now and forever makes gaming its own unique artform and not sub-Hollywood blockbuster or sub-pre-teen cartoon trash.
That there's a lot of room for writing in video games to improve is entirely irrelevant to the gameplay aspects.
CadetMahoney
Member
For good RPGs, you don't so much remember the fact that you killed the big bad but more how you did it.
True, some quicktime event doesn't have as much emotional investment than actually fighting the endboss.
You left out Just Cause 2 for some odd reason.
boiled goose
good with gravy
.
Gameplay can create emotions of power, frustration, helplessness, immersion, calm, etc. Through gameplay games can create emotions in some ways other mediums cannot.
Gameplay is what makes video games effective and what makes them a unique artform.
maniac-kun
Member
Thanks we all are a little dumber now.
Punchpudding
Member
I think a better criticism is dependence on the same formulaic idea of 'gameplay' that many games depend on. Shoot and cover. When you spend 8 hours doing roughly the same thing of course when something different comes along it will be memorable. But simply taking away the shooting and the challenge and replacing it with 8 hours of something different (say wandering around a neat looking environment for 8 hours), that new repeated activity becomes boring. Now you need to kill that and bring in something new. We crave variety and fresh experiences. Instead of killing off things and replacing tried and true mechanics wholesale, designers need to keep innovating and finding that sweet spot between familiar and memorable.
That already happened. The latter is the film industry. By investing attention and care into characters, you are interacting with them despite their being fictional.
Net_Wrecker
Member
That has nothing to do with traditional gameplay getting in the way, that's just the nature of the GENRE of game RDR is. Sandbox style games are inherently worse for delivering a linear story. That's just a fact. At any time out of a mission you can go skipping along not paying any attention to the narrative. On one hand that detracts from the narrative quality, but on the other hand it can deliver a completely different experience of it's own through world building, random events, and atmosphere that isn't possible in something like Telltale's The Walking Dead. That still doesn't mean linear games need to be completely devoid of traditional action-reaction gameplay to tell meaningful stories.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Ever gone to the ballet? How come they haven't figure out that if they get rid of the music and dance they can have more space for complex plots, soliloquies, and dialogues?
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I feel sad that a developer like People Can Fly is saying this after developing gameplay-driven games like Painkiller and Bulletstorm. I don't want less gameplay! I want more!
If I wanted narrative, I'd watch a movie or read a book!
If I wanted narrative, I'd watch a movie or read a book!
Winner.
Aquamarine
Member
It's a good thing that only ONE EX-MEMBER OF PEOPLE CAN FLY said it.
I'd argue that fun IS a deeply emotional experience.
Punkster_NY
Member
That's fine for certain types of games but not all and if that's what he's actually suggesting then that seems a bit extreme and bizarre.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Correct you cant do competitive games this way.
Well, he said "Does it mean that if you want a deeply emotional game, you should drop regular gameplay, with all its core combat loops, gameplay mechanics and other voodoo?".
It doesn't say anywhere that all games should be "deeply emotional"...
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
Well, the only game I liked in his list of gameplay-less games was Bioshock. And the lack of a penalty for death was probably my biggest issue with it while I was playing it. It seemed to cheapen the whole experience that you could continue to cheese a Big-Daddy, attacking without regard for your avatar. And that a death just meant re-spawning with more health.
The other games I've enjoyed this gen DID have penalties for death and required at least SOME skill or thought like Demon's/Dark Souls, Tokyo Jungle, Faster Than Light, Dead Rising, Dragon's Dogma, and Way of the Samurai 4.
The other games I've enjoyed this gen DID have penalties for death and required at least SOME skill or thought like Demon's/Dark Souls, Tokyo Jungle, Faster Than Light, Dead Rising, Dragon's Dogma, and Way of the Samurai 4.
Riposte
Member
The air-tight connection people make between "story" and "emotions" needs to end. One of the reasons these discussions go nowhere is that people don't understand that, even if plenty of people (who are being imitated by videogame writers) understand it to be true for other mediums (though it is obviously also a problem there). In the larger scope of what a game give you, stories in games are very much like the stories in porn. I mean that in a complimentary sense though. They exist only to increase stimulation, but they are only a means among many other means. It is a dressing(it is there to inform the mood, the atmosphere).
If games weren't already "emotional", people wouldn't play them. All games (which are all interactive fictions, all experiences, all have narratives made by the player, insert buzz phrase here) have the goal of making you feel emotions.
HyperCubed4
Member
As a counter example, I'd provide Spec Ops: The Line. The gameplay wasn't polished by any means, but some things that happen during the gameplay are pretty great. Definitely a different example, considering how RDR is an open world game (as Net_Wrecker accurately pointed out) but my point doesn't change. Spec Ops spoilers.
After that one, horrible cutscene where you kill a bunch of innocent civilians because you thought they were enemies, the gameplay feels much more... tense. Walker angrily screams his orders, his squadmates start giving him attitude and when you go to execute wounded soldiers, the attacks are more brutal. In addition to all of this, you can see some soldiers disintegrate when they hit the ground. This happens even from the beginning of the game. They aren't made of dirt; they're Walker's hallucinations. They game doesn't explicitly tell you this, so you have to ponder to yourself why it is. Plus, nothing can change the fact that you are an American soldier killing other American soldiers. In the back of my mind, while I was shooting these guys in the face, I couldn't help but wonder "why? Why is this happening? What did these guys do? Who is my enemy? Why are these soldiers helping me and those ones shooting at me?"
That all happened while I was in combat. These are things I felt while shooting people in the face. I didn't really "beat the challenges to win," so to speak. I was wondering why everything was happening the way it was. Spec Ops was truly an emotional experience.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Seems this same argument keeps rearing its head again and again.
I've said way too much on this subject to care to repeat it. I'll just say, more power to him. We need experiments to explore exactly where the game part of a game ends.
I might wait for the results rather than participate is all.
I've said way too much on this subject to care to repeat it. I'll just say, more power to him. We need experiments to explore exactly where the game part of a game ends.
I might wait for the results rather than participate is all.
I'd never thought I'd agree with Wrecker
Still on my pile of shame
As a gamer, or someone whom I presumably think likes playing games, why would you want to experience this?
The most memorable (and emotional) gaming experience I've had in years was all gameplay with no "story".
One of the first times I came across a non-friendly player in Day Z was amazing. I had already decided I wanted to avoid killing other survivors at all cost. Me and my brothers were playing, doing our best to remain hidden while moving from place to place, when we saw a lone survivor heading west on the opposite side of an open field. We ducked behind a small patch of trees and waited for him to pass us by but he'd already spotted at least one of us. As he headed through the trees straight towards us my younger brother tried to talk to him but he either didn't hear or didn't care. He was crouched and slowly crawling directly towards my oldest brother who couldn't see him through the tall grass. He came into my line of sight and my heart was pounding. I didn't want to have to kill him. With one brother trying to contact him unsuccessfully and the other obliviously staring down the barrel of his gun I stood up and took aim hoping he'd realize he was out numbered and back down. He didn't. He turned to me, took a shot, and then I killed him. The amount of different thoughts I was having and emotions I was feeling in what amounted to about 1 minute 45 seconds was ridiculous.
Reading that back I feel a bit foolish, it's just a game after all, but in the moment it was just as intense and engaging as any other entertainment medium. We talked about it for days as if it really happened. Day Z offered us a structured sandbox with a wide array of game mechanics and allowed us to actually PLAY. We weren't progressing a storying and unlocking the next cutscene. We weren't working through someone elses narrative. We were playing in a game.
One of the first times I came across a non-friendly player in Day Z was amazing. I had already decided I wanted to avoid killing other survivors at all cost. Me and my brothers were playing, doing our best to remain hidden while moving from place to place, when we saw a lone survivor heading west on the opposite side of an open field. We ducked behind a small patch of trees and waited for him to pass us by but he'd already spotted at least one of us. As he headed through the trees straight towards us my younger brother tried to talk to him but he either didn't hear or didn't care. He was crouched and slowly crawling directly towards my oldest brother who couldn't see him through the tall grass. He came into my line of sight and my heart was pounding. I didn't want to have to kill him. With one brother trying to contact him unsuccessfully and the other obliviously staring down the barrel of his gun I stood up and took aim hoping he'd realize he was out numbered and back down. He didn't. He turned to me, took a shot, and then I killed him. The amount of different thoughts I was having and emotions I was feeling in what amounted to about 1 minute 45 seconds was ridiculous.
Reading that back I feel a bit foolish, it's just a game after all, but in the moment it was just as intense and engaging as any other entertainment medium. We talked about it for days as if it really happened. Day Z offered us a structured sandbox with a wide array of game mechanics and allowed us to actually PLAY. We weren't progressing a storying and unlocking the next cutscene. We weren't working through someone elses narrative. We were playing in a game.
vikingvessel
Member
I saw it through to completion more than once and do not regret the time I spent with it, though what was so powerful storywise beyond the strong winds/dramatic soundtrack as the experience was winding down? I am not saying that it wasn't enjoyable, but what was exceptional about the way it was presented? Was it just the strong winds and dramatic soundtrack?
I'm not the one asked (but hell, I'm a gamer as well, I qualify), but if you ask me: because he can. He would be the one taking the risk and we can just wait for the outcome.
I myself enjoy observing breaking some rules, be it in music, games, art or whatever else. Sure, what will come out of it doesn't have to be pleasant, inspiring, good (whatever it means) or whatever, but there always is a chance it turns out to be interesting at least...
So you would embrace the idea of certain games becoming something that doesn't stand by the basic principle of a game: player interaction?
I mean, to each his own, but again, I'd think we wouldn't be able to call them games at that point.
I like all kinds of games. I don't see the need to kill anything, whether it's gameplay or story. I welcome more diversity and experimentation. It's not like these games are preventing more gamey ones from being made.
The biggest problem people have is that cinematic trends are creeping in on traditional gameplay-driven games. If developers want to experiment, they should approach it from the opposite side and make a game with no interaction as opposed to imposing narrative restrictions on classic gameplay structures. That's why I have no problem with QTE's in Heavy Rain where the game is built around them. It gets annoying when you put QTE's in a like Resident Evil where it becomes a big compromise.
On that end, I agree with his comments. If the goal is to make a plot-driven game where emotion is derived more from the events that occur to characters as opposed to you, the player, then gameplay needs to be pared back.
I wish somebody just made a "game" where it's basically a movie made out of real-time cutscenes, and the only thing you can do is change the camera angles, a sort of play where you can walk around as events happen in real time. Maybe then, we can actually start exploring what interaction can do for a narrative that's not built around mechanical challenge.
These types of games probably won't be your commercial "fun" games, but it'll be interesting to see how far traditional narrative can be taken using the medium.
On the flip side, I also want developers to explore completely gameplay-driven narratives where interaction can create unexpected and powerful moments.
When you try to put them together, it creates dissonance, which is why GTA4's story is completely laughable since it tells two different narratives: the Nico in the cutscenes, and the Nico you control. Games like Uncharted make a decent fusion of the two, but it's not completely perfect.
As much as people rail on MGS4, I like how it separates story (cutscenes) from the gameplay. They don't intrude upon each other. I can choose to skip the story if I want to. It's poor attempts like Uncharted 3's desert scene when things get irritating.
The biggest problem people have is that cinematic trends are creeping in on traditional gameplay-driven games. If developers want to experiment, they should approach it from the opposite side and make a game with no interaction as opposed to imposing narrative restrictions on classic gameplay structures. That's why I have no problem with QTE's in Heavy Rain where the game is built around them. It gets annoying when you put QTE's in a like Resident Evil where it becomes a big compromise.
On that end, I agree with his comments. If the goal is to make a plot-driven game where emotion is derived more from the events that occur to characters as opposed to you, the player, then gameplay needs to be pared back.
I wish somebody just made a "game" where it's basically a movie made out of real-time cutscenes, and the only thing you can do is change the camera angles, a sort of play where you can walk around as events happen in real time. Maybe then, we can actually start exploring what interaction can do for a narrative that's not built around mechanical challenge.
These types of games probably won't be your commercial "fun" games, but it'll be interesting to see how far traditional narrative can be taken using the medium.
On the flip side, I also want developers to explore completely gameplay-driven narratives where interaction can create unexpected and powerful moments.
When you try to put them together, it creates dissonance, which is why GTA4's story is completely laughable since it tells two different narratives: the Nico in the cutscenes, and the Nico you control. Games like Uncharted make a decent fusion of the two, but it's not completely perfect.
As much as people rail on MGS4, I like how it separates story (cutscenes) from the gameplay. They don't intrude upon each other. I can choose to skip the story if I want to. It's poor attempts like Uncharted 3's desert scene when things get irritating.
I really wish they made the beginning of Half Life 2, you know, that part where you walk around and take in the world, into a cutscene. After all, there's no story to be gleaned while performing no skill activities such as walking around, looking and throwing cans in to a bin. No siree.
Not all games, but a good portion of them that try to say something but then contradict it or can't work it withing a game could benefit from his ideas.
Then again, games that interweave interaction and plot need to understand that themes can be placed inside interaction and not just exclusive to the plot.
If you want to blatantly tell a story then yes, remove all interaction and turn it into something like The Walking Dead. If you're aiming for something more complex, say The Line (which only gets a mention for trying, not for successfully achieving it's goal [unless you're uncultured swine[), then you've got to figure out what's important in the direction of The Game.
but that's a lot of work for an industry that's still focused on quantity over quality.
Props to Sony, though. Mega props.
Then again, games that interweave interaction and plot need to understand that themes can be placed inside interaction and not just exclusive to the plot.
If you want to blatantly tell a story then yes, remove all interaction and turn it into something like The Walking Dead. If you're aiming for something more complex, say The Line (which only gets a mention for trying, not for successfully achieving it's goal [unless you're uncultured swine[), then you've got to figure out what's important in the direction of The Game.
but that's a lot of work for an industry that's still focused on quantity over quality.
Props to Sony, though. Mega props.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll