• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Examples of Ludonarrative Harmony

After all the discussion in the other thread about what ludonarrative dissonance is, what games have it, and whether it’s even a problem, I thought it might be interesting to come at it from the other direction, and discuss games that actively integrate the gameplay and story in an effective way. So let’s post some examples of instances where the mechanics amplified or complemented the themes or feelings of the narrative, such that we can discuss the value of doing so. Note: this isn’t about cases where the gameplay simply doesn’t get in the way of story or vice versa, but rather where they play off each other in a way that creates a cohesive whole. Here’s some off the top of my head that I’ve appreciated or seen brought up in other threads:

Dishonored

The themes of Dishonored's setting is corruption by the enticement of power. You see it in almost every major character, from High Overseer Campbell and the Lord Regent to Daud and Granny Rags. Whether that power is political, financial or supernatural, each character claims it and uses it for twisted ends. Then Corvo (and the player, by extension) is himself offered power by the Outsider to reach his goals, and can make his own decisions about what abilities to upgrade and how they’re used. But what’s interesting is that the powers are mostly useful in enhancing one’s combat abilities—to make Corvo a deadlier assassin. But each death at Corvo’s hands increases the chaos of the world, which can result in negative consequences both in the story and the level design. Furthermore, by embracing these powers to kill more effectively, Corvo becomes corrupted by power just like his targets and perpetuates the cycle. Conversely, Corvo can deny himself the use of these abilities and play a nonlethal, stealthy playthrough where not even a single person is killed, and the resulting low chaos results in less dangerous levels and a brighter ending.

This technique of tying the chaos system to the narrative is effective because the player himself feels the tension of seeing these cool abilities that he has to forsake if he wants a “good” outcome. In the same way that Corvo and the other characters are tempted by power, so too is the player, and restraint is required to overcome the corruption of the world. By using the mechanics to evoke the same feelings in player and character, Dishonored creates a more immersive experience.

(With credit to Screaming Meat for a more concise description)

FTL

This is a perfect example of mechanics that perfectly match the setting and tone. FTL doesn’t give you a detailed overarching narrative—race to the star system of your headquarters before you get caught by the Federation—but the every element of gameplay, from the vignettes of each new waypoint to the frantic battles, enhance the isolated, vulnerable feeling of traveling in a small vessel in the blackness of space. The tension you feel at moments when you need to put out the ship fire without losing all oxygen really evokes the desperation of the narrative.

Fez

Fez’s story is simple—Gomez must explore his world to collect cubes to keep his world from falling apart—but as a purely 2D entity, he’s only able to do this once he’s granted understanding of the third dimension. From a story standpoint, he literally has to change his perspective to navigate the world and collect the cubes. From a gameplay standpoint, many the puzzles require the player to do the same thing—after the player translates each set of symbols to words, numbers, and directions, his perception of them is permanently changed. This metaphor of visual revelation giving way to mental understanding, and vice versa, is something Gomez and the player both experience, which is a big factor in the immersion the game provides.

Anyone else notice similar techniques in other games?
 
I always thought Shadow of the Colossus was a great example of the "cohesive whole."

The simplistic story-telling and equally simplistic gameplay flow together perfectly. On the one hand, there is nothing "game-y" about this game. Everything has meaning, nothing is superfluous. On the other hand, the ending reveals how the game embraces the essence of videogames and uses it as its central theme: making the player, just as Wanda, a slave who never questions what he gets told to do. Despite the constantly nagging feeling of guilt, you just push on and kill the next "enemy".
 
Dark Souls...As the chosen undead you must make a pilgrimage through lordran..Battle , collect souls and either prolong the age of fire by giving lord souls or abandon the flames and enter the age of dark. Fighting these enemies who are hollow and mindlessly aggressive is a must.
 
Uncharted series. They are basically Indian Jones: The Video Games, and Indy murdered a bunch of dudes in the movies, so it only makes sense that Drake would kill a bunch of people too.
 
Yep, I'll vouch for Shadow of the Colossus, almost. Despite the fact that he lives from falling of the Colossus.

Also, I never really looked at Dishonored in that way before! Harvey Smith is really one hell of a designer, and people like him are the future of story based game play.
 
Dark Souls...As the chosen undead you must make a pilgrimage through lordran..Battle , collect souls and either prolong the age of fire by giving lord souls or abandon the flames and enter the age of dark. Fighting these enemies who are hollow and mindlessly aggressive is a must.

Any hellish nightmare world that has harshly difficult, indifferently punishing gameplay to back that lore, narrative, characters, etc up, Souls, Megaten, Doom, and others. It's really hard to pull that off while tossing mulligans to the player.

Uncharted series. They are basically Indian Jones: The Video Games, and Indy murdered a bunch of dudes in the movies, so it only makes sense that Drake would kill a bunch of people too.

Oh god, the threads are merging.
 
On Dishonored: I think it's a pretty good example and I agree with the OP, but to elaborate one of the universal problems with this kind of dissonance is just the sheer number of dudes you tend to kill in video games. If games liked Uncharted and Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3 take place in 'reality', in whatever sense, then their protagonists are the most effective killing machines that have ever lived by a healthy margin. This is probably true for the hero of Dishonored, but that guy has magic powers potentially unique to him in all of the world, so it makes that a whole lot easier to swallow.

So, uh...I guess I'm saying we should give Nathan Drake magic powers?
 
Uncharted series. They are basically Indian Jones: The Video Games, and Indy murdered a bunch of dudes in the movies, so it only makes sense that Drake would kill a bunch of people too.
Err, no. These games are actually the best examples of ludonarrative dissonance. How many guys does Indy "kill." Like, 5? Drake? At least 500...
 
I've always rather liked the way the resurrection mechanic in the original Bioshock is integrated into the plot. Incoming spoilers.

The Vita-chambers are explained as a protection device to resurrect dead people. Fine; no problem there (if a slight suspension of belief). But later you find that you're a blood relative of Andrew Ryan, and you were specifically engineered as such so you can make use of the Vita-chambers which had been retuned to only work with Ryan's DNA. The reason you can resurrect in the game is because your character was created as someone who could subvert those defenses. What starts out as a gamey contrivance actually ends up making pretty solid sense from a plot perspective.
 
I've always rather liked the way the resurrection mechanic in the original Bioshock is integrated into the plot. Incoming spoilers...
I liked Bioshock Infinite's explanation for the "death, resurrection, repeat" cycle even better.
 
I've always rather liked the way the resurrection mechanic in the original Bioshock is integrated into the plot. Incoming spoilers.

I liked Bioshock Infinite's explanation for the "death, resurrection, repeat" cycle even better.

I loved them as narrative devices, but I HATED them as gameplay mechanics.

Edit: What's the opposite of ludonarrative dissonance, where narrative contrivances interfere with gameplay? Just a random thought that popped into my head.
 
Err, no. These games are actually the best examples of ludonarrative dissonance. How many guys does Indy "kill." Like, 5? Drake? At least 500...

3ii2.png

And a lot of them are violent, cold blooded murders, too.
 
I never felt that Uncharted's gameplay was in conflict with its story. It's an over the top story. Uncharted 2's high praise stems partly from how the whole thing—from cut scene to gameplay back to cut scene—feels like one big movie.

Uncharted may be in conflict with Indiana Jones, but I never felt that it was in conflict with itself.
 
Virtue's Last Reward. 999 may have the tighter story, but VLR marries its gameplay to its story so well. The puzzles reflect and add to what is going on in the visual novel part of the game so that the two blend together into a cohesive whole. To go into too much detail would ruin the game.
 
I loved them as narrative devices, but I HATED them as gameplay mechanics.
What's there to hate about the mechanics? These are videogames, the resurrection mechanics are basically checkpoints. It's just that the Bioshock games tie them into the story in a pretty clever way.

As a whole, the games aren't good examples of ludonarrative harmony, however. The narrative is too removed from the pretty game-y mechanics. In spite of this, I think they are still great games.
 
In the first four .Hack games, you are playing as the dude who is controlling his MMO avatar. So literally any action you take is now completely in character and justifiable by the logic that youre already playing a game (idling for two hours to go poop, spinning your avatar around in a circle, carrying around infinite amounts of items, etc) , which is brilliant and post modern.
 
What's there to hate about the mechanics? These are videogames, the resurrection mechanics are basically checkpoints. It's just that the Bioshock games tie them into the story in a pretty clever way.

Most checkpoint systems restart you before the encounter. Enemies respawn and have full health, you have however much ammo you had going into it. You need to restart the encounter and succeed this time.

Bioshock leaves the world as it is, which means the death doesn't really mean anything. You can take out a Big Daddy with a wrench just by suiciding into its face over and over. You don't need to beat the encounter, you just need to clean up whatever is left.

I forget how Infinite handled the details, but IIRC it was closer to a normal checkpoint system.
 
The only thing Dishonored's "Ludonarrative Harmony" really did was make me feel like I was punished for actually enjoying the game. :\
 
Final Fantasy VII: Meteor is falling, but let's breed Chocobos and go camping!
Edit: Oops, thought this was dissonance. Sorry!
 
Rule of Rose. The chunky, slow gameplay actually makes you feel more powerless and heavy and ties heavily with the story.

Ever17: (HEAVY SPOILER)
The player is a being from the 4th dimension who can move freely across time and space and is "observing" the game, this is reflected by our save&load function and ability to play different routes.
 
The only thing Dishonored's "Ludonarrative Harmony" really did was make me feel like I was punished for actually enjoying the game. :\

I would try to play all stealthy...

And then everything would go to shit and I'd end up with piles of bodies around me.
 
What's there to hate about the mechanics? These are videogames, the resurrection mechanics are basically checkpoints. It's just that the Bioshock games tie them into the story in a pretty clever way.

Because they aren't checkpoints. They are "resurrect with all of your progress intact, and basically no penalty". Well, Infinite had a monetary cost, but it was pretty minor. It just trivializes all encounters, because even if you die you just just get right back up again as if nothing happened.

And as a result of that design, the checkpointing in Bioshock Infinite was some of the worst I've seen in modern games (not to mention manual saving was non-existent, but that's another story).
 
Probably all point and click adventure games and visual novels, since by definition the interaction between the player and he game is so very simple and you can do something other than have a generic white guy murder thousands of Russians/aliens.

Related to this are dating-sim-ish games like Persona 4, where you're still stuck in a predetermined path in terms of your dialog choices, but it's not as asinine as "Left Trigger good, Right Trigger evil". That the dungeon crawling part of the game meshes well with random events such as going to watch a movie with a friend in order to "level up" the relationship is a nice bonus.

I think Braid's "secret" star ending worked really well with some of the themes the game was trying to establish by connecting it directly to the idea of "second chances" that come out of being able to manipulate time.

Of course, in terms of the murder simulator games, Spec Ops actually justifies most of its violence. There are still video game moments that are silly (like the vehicle sequence), but the game recognizes that you are getting more and more demented as you shoot more and more US soldiers in the head.

If you can accept the heightened masculinity of the world in Yakuza, then the idea that people just walk up to Kazama on the street in order to pick a fight with him and you have to beat them down is kind of consistent. Although, it's really the adventure game elements of the Yakuza franchise that hold up in terms of using gameplay to convey story. In Yakuza 3, for example, you have to play through the golfing mini-game in order to ingratiate yourself with the local official of Okinawa. But it makes perfect sense, because in real life, if you wanted to schmooze with some executive or bureaucrat, you probably would take them to a golf course and play a round of golf with them.

I want to say Fallout New Vegas, where picking your sexuality at the beginning of the game changes the way the world's NPCs can potentially react to you is an interesting gameplay way of adding sexuality into a game without making a big deal about it or without making everyone bisexual, which is the BioWare solution.
 
I loved them as narrative devices, but I HATED them as gameplay mechanics.

Edit: What's the opposite of ludonarrative dissonance, where narrative contrivances interfere with gameplay? Just a random thought that popped into my head.

There's a great document I like to refer to when thinking about game design; The Craft of Adventure. It's specifically intended for text adventure designers, but there's an awful lot of game design rules that are fair to apply across the board in it.

One of the things it highlights is the nature of games as "A narrative at war with a crossword". I like that way of looking at things; on the one hand, you've got a story that the designers want to be told. On the other, a feat of skill or intelligence that the player has to accomplish. Both elements are critical, games can go heavily one way or the other and still be valid games (Tetris is no-plot, all skill; something like The Walking Dead is all plot, very little skill). I think it's fair to note that in recent years the natural balance point has drifted more towards the 'story' side - but on the other hand, I think it's fair to point out that for many years it's been more towards the game side than the centre (think of the myriad of games from the 80s and 90s where the story is sacrificed in the name of gameplay).

It's healthy for a critic of games, I think, to be able to appraise games that lie anywhere on that spectrum. That's not in any way an indictment against people who do have solid preferences one way or the other, of course!
 
Because they aren't checkpoints. They are "resurrect with all of your progress intact, and basically no penalty". Well, Infinite had a monetary cost, but it was pretty minor. It just trivializes all encounters, because even if you die you just just get right back up again as if nothing happened.

And as a result of that design, the checkpointing in Bioshock Infinite was some of the worst I've seen in modern games (not to mention manual saving was non-existent, but that's another story).
Well, I don't remember how the first Bioshock handled this, but in BI you also lost a bunch of money when you died. That alone was reason enough for me to try to stay alive.

Played Bioshock on on normal, Infinite on hard and I had a good time with each of those games.
 
Infinite's death penalty was much worse than the original Bioshock. The original Bioshock had an abusable death penalty, but Infinite's was downright punishing and could actually make the game unwinnable if the player's skill level was too low. It is what TVTropes calls an Unstable Equilibrium.
 
For me, it would be VLR, and I'll go into why(seriously, don't highlight if you have any desire at all to play this game).


The structure of the game is a flow chart, and you may not think about why too much as you're playing the game, until you realize the story itself is your character zapping around his consciousness to the bodies of his other selves IN these other paths. The big moment for me(and there was many) that this hits home is the game's usage of "locks." By getting to a point in a path, you may not have the knowledge to continue on. By doing another path, you may learn something on that path to open a lock.


On Alice's END path, at one point she runs off to kill herself. You go all over the place to find her, but can't in time, leading to a game over. Going back to the flow chart, you can then see a green lock on that path you were just on, indicating it's open. Clicking it, you go back to the part where you have to find her, except now you know *exactly* where she's going to kill herself, stopping her just in time. That was an AMAZING moment in a game full of them.
 
I never felt that Uncharted's gameplay was in conflict with its story. It's an over the top story. Uncharted 2's high praise stems partly from how the whole thing—from cut scene to gameplay back to cut scene—feels like one big movie.

Uncharted may be in conflict with Indiana Jones, but I never felt that it was in conflict with itself.

People whining about Uncharted have it all mixed up, especially when they say Drake's an "everyman" or some shit. He's a criminal underworld superhero who saves the world from Nazi Zombies, mystical blue giants, and evil powerhungry villains who want to use magic stuff to take over humanity. It's just pulp fantasy action, go watch an old serial or something and you'll see wanton death and destruction and heroes murdering scores with no conscience. And it's fine, it's fun. There's less ludonarrative dissonance here than in TLOU
 
Portal did a good job with it -- the narrative fully justifies the "series of tutorial puzzle rooms" design, and when you break out of the facility halfway through, the level design changes to make it feel like you're actively breaking the rules.

Dark Souls...As the chosen undead you must make a pilgrimage through lordran..Battle , collect souls and either prolong the age of fire by giving lord souls or abandon the flames and enter the age of dark. Fighting these enemies who are hollow and mindlessly aggressive is a must.

Yup. Even the items were tied into the lore. There's very little in the game that just feels arbitrary or put there because "an RPG has to have it".
 
How do you guys feel about Cart Life?

I have yet to play it but what I've seen of it let's me assume that it might be a good example as well.
 
Amnesia and Planescape: torment are both great examples of this, their primary game mechanics being explore+hide and conversation respectively.
 
Well, I don't remember how the first Bioshock handled this, but in BI you also lost a bunch of money when you died. That alone was reason enough for me to try to stay alive.

Played Bioshock on on normal, Infinite on hard and I had a good time with each of those games.

I didn't mean to derail the thread into whether or not Bioshock was good. Let's just say for gameplay reasons, I would have preferred a more traditional checkpoint system, even if it kept the narrative justification of the existing revive system (would work better in Infinite than in the original), and leave it at that.

It's healthy for a critic of games, I think, to be able to appraise games that lie anywhere on that spectrum. That's not in any way an indictment against people who do have solid preferences one way or the other, of course!

I wasn't really making a statement of preference for narrative vs. story in games. I was merely musing on the idea that people have been spending a lot of time discussing how gameplay mechanics interfere with storytelling, but not a lot of people talk about how narrative decisions might lead to bad game design. Maybe that's because developers tend to put gameplay over story more often than not.
 
Drakengard pretty much takes the "You have killed a bazillion people" thing as a plot point and runs with it with npcs commenting on you showing no mercy to kids and so on and how much you enjoy murdering

on the flip side the Atelier series mostly lighthearted daily life stuff fits perfectly well with the crafting and expanding your business gameplay
 
Pokemon, the catching and battling mentality is a key part of the world and story of every Pokemon game. Now if only that story was a little stronger...
 
Top Bottom