-
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
oneils
Member
A lot of people seem to be taking him literally. But what I see is a post that is just trying to be provocative for the purposes of discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
I think he raises an interesting point. Personally, I enjoy both aspects of video games. Game play, and story. It is true that its rare to find a game that does both well. So I can see why some developers may want to focus predominately on one aspect. Especially if resources are limited. There is a market for story, and a market for gameplay. I think Super Meat Boy is a great example of the latter and Walking Dead is a good example of the former.
As to his last question: Do you play games to pass the time or to create memories?
That's interesting. I actually do play games to pass the time. I rarely do it for experiences/memories. I seem to spend most of my time on very simple and straight forward games that aren't really much more than maybe a more complicated version of solitaire.
I have hundreds of hours in Counter Strike Source just playing the same thing over and over again. Hundreds of hours playing Civilisation on easy and making my civ grow and grow. Dozens of hours on a freelance mod for Mount and Blade: Warband.
Not sure what that says about me as a gamer. But that is how I like my games.
I think he raises an interesting point. Personally, I enjoy both aspects of video games. Game play, and story. It is true that its rare to find a game that does both well. So I can see why some developers may want to focus predominately on one aspect. Especially if resources are limited. There is a market for story, and a market for gameplay. I think Super Meat Boy is a great example of the latter and Walking Dead is a good example of the former.
As to his last question: Do you play games to pass the time or to create memories?
That's interesting. I actually do play games to pass the time. I rarely do it for experiences/memories. I seem to spend most of my time on very simple and straight forward games that aren't really much more than maybe a more complicated version of solitaire.
I have hundreds of hours in Counter Strike Source just playing the same thing over and over again. Hundreds of hours playing Civilisation on easy and making my civ grow and grow. Dozens of hours on a freelance mod for Mount and Blade: Warband.
Not sure what that says about me as a gamer. But that is how I like my games.
spandexmonkey
Banned
If I'm wanting a deeply emotional experience in my visual media, I'll watch a movie.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I wouldn't. I don't agree with him at all, I'm just saying, someone's gotta be the one pushing the envelope. I'm gonna pass, but the two possibilities of this are a) a dismal failure that supports my opinion that a game experience should be built from the game part up not imposed from the top down, or b) a complete surprise that may be a breath of fresh air worth playing.
Superficially anyway, that sounds like a win/win.
Look guys, Sleeping Dogs isn't polished or revolutionary but it DOES have a great story and great gameplay. Although the gunplay might not be great, at least they were trying, and the story is a nice exploration of the Triad world and the undercover cop dynamic.
That's a great example of the two coming together, IMO. I like The Walking Dead as much as the next guy but I also like Dark Souls. Saying we should kill either is just wrong to me when we've come so far.
Kageshinzo
Member
The problem is that his idea of a "better game" is one that delivers an "emotional experience" at the expense of "gameplay" when the two doesn't need to be mutually exclusive. Case in point: Shadow of the Colossus.
For most of the game, you are basically going from point A to point B, figuring out how to kill each colossi, and not once is the story intruding into this gameplay. But after each colossi, something happens to you that is only shown in a couple of seconds, when shadows from the colossi get into you and, unless you're unobservant, you would notice that Wander's physical appearance and demeanor changes throughout the game in subtle steps: he becomes much less active, as if each ordeal has taken something from him, he looks much more unkept and pallid. You don't notice this because you're so engrossed by the gameplay of killing colossi until it hits you in the end, when the ending happens. And BAM, you're watching, emotionally stirred, as Wander tries his best to hold on. And what's more, you control him at this point, and this only makes everything that much more bleaker.
All of it wouldn't have the same emotional impact if you were only watching Wander killing the colossus, or just pressing stupid buttons in QTE style every now and then. No, you felt that resonance at the end simply BECAUSE you were an accomplice in what happened to him. You were not just a spectator. YOU were responsible.
Time was when a game used to be all about overcoming goals to save the princess at the end of the castle, or save the world, or get some stupid banana at the end. The ending was a reward for a job well-done. Story was just a background to the gameplay and all this happened because developers did not have the technology to join both in a seamless, equal way. That's not the case now, but to imply that we have to remove one in order to get a "better game" is just idiotic. Any game developer who needs to sacrifice one over the other and trying to justify it is just covering up for the fact that he's bad at creating games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Adrian Chmielarz can still get what he wants and still brand himself as a game developer though. He can create his vision of this game and then market it as an interactive movie. Then let the market decide. Let the gamers decide. There's no need for him to preach that gameplay needs to go. The video game umbrella is wide enough for lots of genres, and one more couldn't possibly hurt.
For most of the game, you are basically going from point A to point B, figuring out how to kill each colossi, and not once is the story intruding into this gameplay. But after each colossi, something happens to you that is only shown in a couple of seconds, when shadows from the colossi get into you and, unless you're unobservant, you would notice that Wander's physical appearance and demeanor changes throughout the game in subtle steps: he becomes much less active, as if each ordeal has taken something from him, he looks much more unkept and pallid. You don't notice this because you're so engrossed by the gameplay of killing colossi until it hits you in the end, when the ending happens. And BAM, you're watching, emotionally stirred, as Wander tries his best to hold on. And what's more, you control him at this point, and this only makes everything that much more bleaker.
All of it wouldn't have the same emotional impact if you were only watching Wander killing the colossus, or just pressing stupid buttons in QTE style every now and then. No, you felt that resonance at the end simply BECAUSE you were an accomplice in what happened to him. You were not just a spectator. YOU were responsible.
Time was when a game used to be all about overcoming goals to save the princess at the end of the castle, or save the world, or get some stupid banana at the end. The ending was a reward for a job well-done. Story was just a background to the gameplay and all this happened because developers did not have the technology to join both in a seamless, equal way. That's not the case now, but to imply that we have to remove one in order to get a "better game" is just idiotic. Any game developer who needs to sacrifice one over the other and trying to justify it is just covering up for the fact that he's bad at creating games. Nothing more, nothing less.
Adrian Chmielarz can still get what he wants and still brand himself as a game developer though. He can create his vision of this game and then market it as an interactive movie. Then let the market decide. Let the gamers decide. There's no need for him to preach that gameplay needs to go. The video game umbrella is wide enough for lots of genres, and one more couldn't possibly hurt.
Mr_Appleby
Member
most emotional moment in games for me these last two years is the Old Witches ring in Dark Souls. 3~4 extra lines of dialog- heart-wrenching.
If games want to achieve emotional moments, for me that requires both simplicity AND a tie to the gameplay. I just simply can not get involved in characters/stories told through cut-scenes or non-gameplay methods. I'd rather read a book. For something like MGS4, I will keep a book beside me to read during the breaks.
If games want to achieve emotional moments, for me that requires both simplicity AND a tie to the gameplay. I just simply can not get involved in characters/stories told through cut-scenes or non-gameplay methods. I'd rather read a book. For something like MGS4, I will keep a book beside me to read during the breaks.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
What games like ICO and Shadow of the Collosus? Those games give me an emotional experience that no other game has. Other games like Max Payne 3 for example only fill a void of temporary joy.
GalacticGravy
Member
I am in favor of more choices. Right now, I don't think there are enough games like The Walking Dead. Games with a sense of tension, but without combat. For me, combat embodies what they call "gameplay." That's not always the case, though.
I want games that are all about gameplay and little else like Mega Man. I want games with "choose your adventure" style story with little gameplay like The Walking Dead. I want puzzle games with no time limits, like Myst. I want Story-driven adventures like Mass Effect. I want wacky shit like Tokyo Jungle. I want out-of-control multiplayer destruction like Crackdown. I want hyper-competitive games like DOTA 2. I want it all. If someone is out there who wants to make something they think is fresh, I'm hopeful and a little excited.
I want games that are all about gameplay and little else like Mega Man. I want games with "choose your adventure" style story with little gameplay like The Walking Dead. I want puzzle games with no time limits, like Myst. I want Story-driven adventures like Mass Effect. I want wacky shit like Tokyo Jungle. I want out-of-control multiplayer destruction like Crackdown. I want hyper-competitive games like DOTA 2. I want it all. If someone is out there who wants to make something they think is fresh, I'm hopeful and a little excited.
Riposte
Member
Because this is a false dichotomy to begin with. We already have both, but now people just want one. (You are already saying this, to some extent)
This isn't a zero sum game. People live in this magical world in which if you take away story, you somehow are guaranteed to get a better game out of it. The reasoning behind the examples is completely fallacious as well -- as they games are good games on their own merit. The relevancy of their story-line is descriptive and not prescriptive. Just take a moment to consider the hordes of terrible games with no real narrative and those great epic adventures. It's about making smart case-by-case decisions about one's game. One size does not fit all. Do I think there is a disproportionate issue with this among AAA games? Probably. But not games overall.
not_so_special
Banned
keep fighting the good fight son
XANDER CAGE
Member
Video games need better writers - across the board - before I give two shits about "story driven" games. The Walking Dead is nice I guess, but it's also relying on an existing property. I'm not saying it can't happen, but so far the two ways games seem to be "story driven" at the moment is
1. Try and stretch a film screenplay out over 20-40 hours. Rockstar, etc.
2. Write a story that puts on airs about being "dark", "sad", "emotional", which usually just means "a lot of swearing and overwrought drama". Heavy Rain, what we've seen of Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3, etc.
I'll take a mechanically interesting game with a dumbass story over a funneled game with a great story any day.
1. Try and stretch a film screenplay out over 20-40 hours. Rockstar, etc.
2. Write a story that puts on airs about being "dark", "sad", "emotional", which usually just means "a lot of swearing and overwrought drama". Heavy Rain, what we've seen of Tomb Raider and Far Cry 3, etc.
I'll take a mechanically interesting game with a dumbass story over a funneled game with a great story any day.
not_so_special
Banned
Kenshin001
Member
You don't need to kill gameplay, you need to combine good stories and good story telling with good gameplay. Despite game stories being mostly embarrassing childish drivel they are not mutually exclusive.
His examples are garbage.
"GRAND THEFT AUTO 3+
Driving around, listening to the radio."
Bullshit. I remember when GTA3 came out and everybody (even pretty casual gamers) were playing and talking about it. What do you think the first and most memorable thing every single person did when it was explained they could do anything they want? They went on a crazy murderous rampage across the city trying to cause as much mayhem as they could, getting the wanted level as high as they could, and seeing how long they could last before they eventually got taken down by the police. That is most definitely gameplay- by his definition or any other.
The best moments in gaming all revolve around things you DO.
"GRAND THEFT AUTO 3+
Driving around, listening to the radio."
Bullshit. I remember when GTA3 came out and everybody (even pretty casual gamers) were playing and talking about it. What do you think the first and most memorable thing every single person did when it was explained they could do anything they want? They went on a crazy murderous rampage across the city trying to cause as much mayhem as they could, getting the wanted level as high as they could, and seeing how long they could last before they eventually got taken down by the police. That is most definitely gameplay- by his definition or any other.
The best moments in gaming all revolve around things you DO.
Foxtastical
Member
Fucking DayZ.
WaterChroma
Neo Member
Agreed. To me Super Mario Galaxy is an memorable experience due to the music, and game-play. Same with Shenmue along with it's interesting story. Everyone is different and have preferences and tastes.
Come on- this is a crazy generalization. Games like Super Meat Boy, FTL, etc., are the exact opposite of what you're describing.
Discotheque
Banned
Developer who excels at gameplay wants to fucking kill it? Bulletstorm and Painkiller were so damn great to PLAY. Fuck this noise.
I can't believe this is coming from the developer of Painkiller, going big-time must have warped their minds.
I take it you don't know many indie games.
I take it you don't know many indie games.
As a former gamer (Not on purpose), i kinda agree with what his saying. No offense to anyone, i don't know when it happened, nowadays if a game doesn't reel me in with a good story @ the onset, i turn it off. Even if the gameplay is above average... Ofcourse there are exceptions (sports etc etc) But yeah, all i'm saying is there is an audience for what he is proposing...n i'm one of em. This is the same attitude i have towards movies fyi
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
How the fuck does he work in a creative industry and not understand genre?
AcceptableGhost
Member
It all happened when they started adding horrible unskippable cutscenes in Bulletstorm.
Riposte
Member
Yep. Some on the top, some on the bottom.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Holy fucking shit do you? Joke post? Your interpretation is literally the opposite of his suggestion. How does calling for more moments such as driving for no reason in GTA or exploring for its own sake in a game like Skyrim (at the expense of focusing on play mechanics such as combat) somehow translate to "more cutscenes, less nothing, more action!" Unless I've completely misread your post...
The guy has a point, he just should have used a word other than gameplay when trying to make it. Two points:
1. Most mainstream titles nowadays will focus on their story/emotional aspects and then force them down the players' throats using an entirely different medium such as cinematics (in Halo 4's case, several different mediums).
2. A Splinter Cell dev recently commented (something along the lines of) how violence is games is different to violence in films because it's not there for moral reasons but instead is a core gameplay component. Remove the violence (try turning off the AI using the console in a PC game) and you're left with very little.
You can kill both of these birds with the one stone, but not by removing gameplay, and not by throwing in emotional (read: sad) cutscenes at every turn. Instead, you want more gameplay, but broader gameplay. Making elements such as narrative, worldbuilding, exploration and discovery into engaging facets of gameplay creates a wider range of experience for the player without relying on a constant stream of combat or other purely "gameplay" (quotes indicating the article's sense of the word) encounters. It's far easier said than done though and every game has to strike its own balance. Some games are better off focusing solely on what makes them fun to play (fighters, Super Mario for example).
Some good examples of games in recent years that do successfully integrate these other elements into their play (imo) are New Vegas, the Metroid Prime series (though it did so less as the series progressed), San Andreas and to some extent, the Bioshocks (kind of reaching but the list turned out quite short). Skyrim (and Oblivion and Fallout 3) are great at evoking a sense of wonder in exploration but fall down hard everywhere else.
I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to make a game that fully excises "gameplay" and is still worth playing (honestly, what's the point?) but there is certainly room to broaden the spectrum and see what emerges.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Got news for you: money and fame doesn't automatically make you an evil hunchback.
dickgumshoe
Member
He's got a warped definition of gameplay. He's got a warped idea of what creates memorable moments.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Maybe he realizes that nothing he will work on will ever top Painkiller so he is getting out of the (good game) competition entirely now?
As an aside, this is actually an interesting indicator of how divergent Splinter Cell and Metal Gear really are. Metal Gear took this is as a way to create an action game on a platform not really suited for it (MSX), and de-emphasized killing for the most part. Splinter Cell it seems now IGNORES they are in a position to create gameplay without killing (focusing on how to get around enemies without detection) and instead uses it as a way to get the drop on enemies. I'd go so far as to say that Splinter Cell's missing the point entirely in order to appease the LCD, especially given how absurdly brutal it is even compared to most violent games that aren't designed around a potentially non-violent core idea.
Punchpudding
Member
I'm surprised there is not more discussion about his definition of gameplay. He's not saying we should just watch movies, he's questioning the value of challenge; while many of us seem to assume he means interactivity. Taking his (somewhat crappy) definition of gameplay that is tied to challenge, it's a bit of a different discussion.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i think he is right in some regard. but at the same time there is enough room for all sorts of experiences.
people who "just want fun" from games aren't people who are looking for an emotional experience from video games for whatever reason, and that is where "cutting out the gameplay" would benefit -- because people who "just want to have fun" are not treating the medium as an art form.
people who "just want fun" from games aren't people who are looking for an emotional experience from video games for whatever reason, and that is where "cutting out the gameplay" would benefit -- because people who "just want to have fun" are not treating the medium as an art form.
AcceptableGhost
Member
According to Wikipedia, there are a lot of emotions - and I am pretty sure that games cover a lot of them. Do tell me what emotion in particular you are seeking?
Night_Trekker
Member
Uh... I think I agree with what he's trying to say, but he hasn't done a good job saying what I think he's saying.
Traditional narratives (which, no, are not out of place or "cheating" or "trying to be film" in video games) require authorial control. That means some degree, big or small, of control might need to be taken away from the player at some point, depending on what you're trying to do and what kind of story you're trying to tell.
And yeah, sometime it's okay to have unexciting "downtime" in games that are heavy on a traditional narrative. That's also fine. Or you can tell a story using a more emergent form of narrative. That's a great choice, too. (And no, this is not the "right" way to tell a story in a game. A lot of people who should know better keep saying this, and their arguments are irrational and 100% wrong.)
And best of all, none of this means the AAA blockbuster game experiences we all love are "wrong" or endangered. It just means we'll have different kinds of experiences to choose from, which is a great thing if you're not a whiny manchild.
Traditional narratives (which, no, are not out of place or "cheating" or "trying to be film" in video games) require authorial control. That means some degree, big or small, of control might need to be taken away from the player at some point, depending on what you're trying to do and what kind of story you're trying to tell.
And yeah, sometime it's okay to have unexciting "downtime" in games that are heavy on a traditional narrative. That's also fine. Or you can tell a story using a more emergent form of narrative. That's a great choice, too. (And no, this is not the "right" way to tell a story in a game. A lot of people who should know better keep saying this, and their arguments are irrational and 100% wrong.)
And best of all, none of this means the AAA blockbuster game experiences we all love are "wrong" or endangered. It just means we'll have different kinds of experiences to choose from, which is a great thing if you're not a whiny manchild.
Activision will satisfy you there (though I imagine Ubisoft has the right idea here).
Activision's Walking Dead sounds like shit. Just let me roam around places like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and shoot things between scenes of characters yelling at each other.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
What emotions do games commonly evoke when actually playing them (crying because Aeris died doesn't count!)? There are those caused by this article's definition of gameplay (something like combat, platforming or tetris) which would commonly include tension, panic, challenge, adrenaline, frustration, resolve and accomplishment. Beyond that though, what emotions do games cause people to feel regularly? Maybe fear (horror titles/levels), awe (impressive vsuals) and sometimes humour. The titles that go beyond this usually stick out. New Vegas made me feel responsibility for the outcomes of my player agency far more than Mass Effect ever did due to the way it integrated that agency into the gameplay.
Kageshinzo
Member
To this day, I still have not felt anger towards an enemy like I did with Jenova-LIFE immediately after the Aerith scene. I specifically had a save at that point kept just so I can destroy it again and again.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
one that you can take away something from a game that will add to you as a person. games are in a unique position to surpass the visual barrier and interact with what is happening on the screen and not be restrained by time to tell a story or to have an experience.
as above, what A More Normal Bird had said, i completely agree:
a feeling of responsibility
questioning societal standards
piquing interest in subjects that people are not usually exposed to
excitement to learn more about the narrative -- not just to play the game for its gameplay. as a result, expanding your thought processes into thinking about complex storytelling in a visual manner. its like a video novel
the run of the mill emotions that you get that are short-term, such as panic/frustration/anger usually come from the gameplay and unless you get a hernia or an aneurysm, aren't really going to have a lasting impact.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll