254: Playing for the Story

[Omnific One]

This is exactly why I quit playing Uncharted. I want to like it because everyone else does, and so do I, for most of it. But then I find out that the REWARD for finding the right way to go forward is a billion dudes with unlimited ammo who will shoot you for ever. I don't want to slaughter thousands of mercenaries! I want to explore well-realized ruins and gorgeous environments?

Ditto for Castlevania. I love SotN and the DS games with their emphasis on exploration, but there is a definite sense that the game somehow resents me for playing it.

That's why I made fun of people who were pissed about Elika in PoP. If you aren't playing games to play them, then what are you playing them for?

Same with the Elika issue. I loved PoP4 because it flowed well and the lack of deaths made the game much more enjoyable and I was able to focus on the story and characters.

I played ME1 on Insanity because it was incredibly easy on a soldier even without ever using Immunity (I died once during the entire game). But with ME2, I play on normal and veteran. I played on insanity but at the collector ship level on the platforms I just stopped as it wasn't fun. Dragon Age is always on easy for me and FPS's like CoD I usually play on normal or easy, with the occasional foray into veteran.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I do this for some games. When I played Metal gear solid 4 for instance, I could have put it on big boss hard, as I had played all the other games, but I was more interested in seeing where the story went, and I just played it on normal. Honestly, it all depends on the game. If the game has a real narrative driven plot, then I probably won't even try it on hard, because those games are best the first time. The gameplay a means to an end, of sucking you in for the ride. Increasing the difficulty could easily kill that with constant dying, so I'm okay with just playing on normal and nothing but.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

I know exactly what you're talking about. I feel very much the same way, but for whatever reason I love the old Super Mario Bros. games, and constantly find myself wanting to be better at them. Most of the time though, especially with FPS's like Bioshock 2, gameplay just bores me.

 

[AndreyC]

I'm kinda divided on this. I like the games for the story AND I like games for the fun/challenge. But both levels of enjoyment seem to be totally separate for me. The latter is more like a "hobby" kind of game enjoyment, I like to play games for fun/challenge just as I could pratice some sport or have some other hobby. Something to "kill time", something to just enjoy myself. As of experiencing the story, it's different. I could play a game for the story even if the gameplay sucked hard. That's because I like the general storytelling structure games can have. I enjoy games like this just like I'd enjoy a movie or a book. Of course, not every game has a story good enough to be compared to that of a book or movie. Sometimes, storytelling in games are just that for the sake of being there, but they aren't really the focus.

Someone said: "playing only for the story? go read a book or watch a movie". I don't agree with that. There are a few games with storytelling so immersive and complex that they can beat most books or movies. I say that because I READ A LOT and I WATCH A LOT OF MOVIES, but I can't say there are a lot of movies or books I've experienced that I enjoyed as much as Metal Gear Solid, for example. Also, I like to think playing for the story can improve your cultural references if you pick the right games. I'm a amateur writer (already published some short stories in my main language, Portuguese), and I've used some games' atmosphere as inspirational source for some of my literary works. And that was quite successful, because there are not a lot of writers that actually play videogames. As we all know, art inspires art. The more you read/watch/live, the more you can create. Writers are looking for inspirational sources everywhere. They're constantly reading new books, watching new movies etc. I feel like games can be a fresh and unexplored source of inspiration. They obviously don't exclude the other means, but game storytelling shouldn't be ignored when it has that much potential.

P.S.: Just noting most of the posters in "The Escapist" forums are PC Gamers and/or fans of Western games mostly. All I can read is "BioWare" and "Valve". As much as I like BioWare and Valve, I don't think their games are the only ones that should be taken into account when talking about Storytelling in videogames. I don't even think their games have the best stories at all... but that's just personal opinion.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

One last thought, dying and reloading repeatedly seems like an anachronism left over from the arcade gaming days, got to keep pumping in those tokens, that doesn't even need to exist in gaming except in the current versions of arcade type games.
Seems like some mechanic other than dying/reloading might better fit todays RPG and other story based games as an incentive.
Or just plain incentive vs disincentive.
Why are we still stuck with this as the primary penalty 30 years after arcades died? It doesn't even make sense with save anywhere and save as you go systems these days.
Does that strike anyone else as a little odd?

Arcades aren't dead. Great and numerous games have released in arcades every year. And save anywhere isn't in every game.

For me a challanging game is more rewarding then just cruising through a game. Even starting from the very start of the game can be rewarding. Arcade games have ways for the player to improve extensively even if thier facing the same pattern. Ikaruga for instance allows you to master the chaining system so that you maximize your score. The dying and starting over in a game isn't anacronistic it just required a differenty mindset.

 

[Ptolemy]

I find that the story element is important but immersion into the character that is being played is what i care about the most.

 

[capt.fodder]

Let me tell you something: I love micromanagement, I love leveling my party members and pausing to issue orders all the time. I HATE THE COMBAT IN DA:O. It is awful, so awful I tossed it after 45 hours or so of gameplay. All they had to do to fix the whole combat problem was add one option that was in BG2: "Auto-pause when I lose my target." That's it, that's all. If the game were playable with all of the character's tactics slots emptied out so that I could micromanage MORE I'd have enjoyed it immensely, but to not know when someone is done fighting (by pausing, like I mentioned) is horrifying. And to try and fill the tactics slots in some generic way is damn near impossible. Blech.

The combat in that game is terrible, terrible, terrible. Terrible. Did I mention it was terrible? It is.

 

[the1ultimate]

I did actually <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.183496-Dragon-Age-difficulty-help> have to tone down the difficulty in Dragon Age: Origins at one point, but since then I've been fine on medium difficulty, probably because I do all the sidequests (because I want to make sure I find all the content and cool items). I am enjoying the battles because of all the spell effects available to me.

Sometimes I do feel that certain sections of some games drag on though, and it does bother me that games often make it harder to progress during some of the more interesting plot developments (sometimes breaking the narrative flow) but on the whole I can't hold it against these games because it's mostly a case of the climax of a particular story arc affecting the playable parts of the game as well as the narrative.

As they said in my thread (above), there's no shame in turning the difficulty down.
If you are stuck in one area, it's better to move on to a part of the game you like better, otherwise you might feel discouraged from returning to the game at all, and never finish it.

 

[SageRuffin]

You know, you could've done the exp exploit when you have to gather those scrolls for Duncan (before being inducted to the Grey Wardens). You could be lvl.25 in as many minutes, and proceed to effortlessly slaughter everything in your attempts to drive back the Darkspawn.

Reminds me of when I finished my Insanity run in ME2 (holy fuck, that was a headache). The first thing I did after that was... well, I talked to Legion first, then I started a new game, put the s.o.b. on Casual, and tore ass with my FemShep Infiltrator. I got the feeling that my character actually earned her rank, and what a feeling it was. Plus, being able to one-shot-one-kill enemies with the sniper is awesomesauce.

I never quite understood when people say "t3h 1st thing i do iz put the diffculty on hardest". I always viewed that as trying to pose as a pretentious jackass, especially for complex action games (ie DMC, Bayonetta, and NG2) where you not knowing what you're doing will result in you wondering why your name is spelled in your own entrails on the ground. I for one applaud you for admitting that you don't mind putting the game on Easy; you play the game how you want. Everyone else can stick it.

 

[Juan Regular]

That took you quite some time, huh?
I decided that playing a game on easy was better for me ever since I first played FF VII and that must've been the first real story driven game I had played.

The story is most definitely is the most important part of a good single player game.
That's why I'm immensily enjoying Alan Wake right now.

 

[BizRodian]

The games I enjoy most are the ones with an excellent story or in lack of a story, an interesting "feel" or setting (like the first Unreal Tournament, way way back, or the Grand Theft Auto games). Games with interesting stories are really the only games I finish. If it's only the gameplay that's fun then I normally stop playing it before it's finished...

 

[lanoger]

Let me tell you something: I love micromanagement, I love leveling my party members and pausing to issue orders all the time. I HATE THE COMBAT IN DA:O. It is awful, so awful I tossed it after 45 hours or so of gameplay.

The combat in that game is terrible, terrible, terrible. Terrible. Did I mention it was terrible? It is.

This. The article goes on about how it isn't really the fault of the game when people give up on the combat, but it really is. Balancing game difficulty is tricky but there are some things that are quantitatively worse, such as how monsters scaled in Oblivion (if you didn't manage your points, the game could actually become impossible by ~lvl 30) and, er, all of DA:O.

I might not be calling my big brother in to kill bosses for me in Tomb Raider any more, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have epic gun battles with waves of marauders for some stupid trinket and then be told if I was a Real Gamer(TM) then I'd do it again and enjoy it.

 

[pepitko]

Great article, I can totally relate to this. I find myself more and more interested in the story rather than the actual gameplay. I rarely play on easy, mostly medium and I almost never play on hard, because I just don't see the point of replaying the game, once I know the story and already sank dozens of hours into it, after all my gaming time is limited by work.

In Oblivion, half-way through the main quest line, I got tired of getting slapped by timerwolfs or random bears and having to smash enemies dozens of times to kill tham and than having to constantly repair all equipment and spend all cash on health potions... so, I adjusted the slide bar to the lowest setting, blasted through the main story and enjoyed the game much more.

That said, it's time for revival in adventure games. If anyone could recommend even older games with an excellent story, I'd really appreciate it.

 

[tcurt]

Great, now i'm ashamed that i actually stopped playing Dragon Age altogether rather than turning down the difficulty.

Same here. How many great games have I let frustrate me to the point of quitting rather than just turning down the difficulty level? Kinda silly in retrospect.

(I'm looking at you, STALKER.)

 

[daftalchemist]

I love this article. While I thankfully found the combat in ME2 to be fun, DA:O killed me in how tedious the fights were. Fortunately it only took me til that first ogre in Ostagar to realize that I wasn't about to spend the rest of the game retrying hard enemies because all I cared about was story and turned it right down to easy mode. It made the game so much more enjoyable, but even now I can't bring myself to go back to replay it because memories of areas such as the entire dwarf area full of dark spawn fighting make me avoid it.

However, I don't feel bad about turning DA:O down to easy. It was the first time I had turned a game to easy since Devil May Cry 3 after all. My reasoning is that I don't play Bioware games for action and combat. That's stupid. That's like playing The Sims for plot and character development. Bioware is about story and character interactions, and that's all I want from them. If that means turning their games down to easy so I can get to those parts more quickly, that's fine by me.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

I'm actually completely opposite to the writer. I would absolutely love to have game stories be as engrossing as Bioshock and FF7, but since almost no games are even close to that accolades, I prefer game mechanics myself.

My favorite games of all time doesn't really have a story, Contra. I love the difficulty and the rewards for overcoming that difficulty. I also love to realize how fast my fingers are reacting to the game and whatever I'm thinking. It's those moments of epic Shinobi battles and tricky Contra levels that keep me going to play games. Really, if I wanted to experience a great story, games are probably on the bottom of my list. Honestly, I prefer movies and comic books for that sort of thing.

Games are for gaming, imo.

 

[CronoDAS]

I joke that "Real Gamers don't play on Easy", but it's only a joke. Sometimes you really do just want to hit that "I Win" button so you can see the story play out instead of bashing your way through a boss that just won't die. (I did the same thing in Wizardry Gold so I could actually win some of the boss fights instead of always having to "come back later".)

I do blame you for skipping the sidequests, though. This is a BioWare game, for Link's sake! You've gotta do the sidequests!

 

[Litchhunter]

I feel that I would have to agree with almost all of this. The only thing that I feel differently on it the side-quest topic. Personaly, I love the things if they add the depth of the characters. The best way I can describe it is as if the game's plot was a book. I would not care as much if the main character went from plot point to plot point in a quick run to the end. The side quests are kind of the filler you can find in most novels. It adds to the overall story, deepens the characters, and extends the story to a nice, filling length.
(Now, side quests that just tell you to go kill X of Y or escort B to C, with no plot devlopment then HAHA no.)

 

[saintchristopher]

it's interesting that you wanted to play Heavy Rain on easy; uncharacteristically I chose to play it on hard, and I had almost no trouble, save for the highway scene.

If it weren't for trophies nowadays, I'd never even think of playing a game on the hard setting. I love the games that don't award you for playing on hard (i.e Fallout, though I can't wait to try hardcore mode in New Vegas), unless it's a rare gem like Arkham Asylum, whose only got more engaging.

Also, the only way Halo has ever been so much as playable to me was on Legendary. It's a completely different game, one in which the player is almost required to think to make it through.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

This seems to lead back to the old 'Are games getting easier'/'Are easier games a bad thing' argument, and answers it well, I feel. You should play a game in the manner that gives you the most enjoyment, whether that's by adjusting the difficulty to allow easy completion or to provide maximum challenge, or, indeed, any point in between.
If I'm understanding Mr. Westbrook correctly, he seems to be suggesting that, in many RPG's nowadays, combat can take a back seat to the story with minimal impact on his gameplay experience, and I would second that notion - there are certain games that are story-rich, and I would far rather experience and shape the story via my choices than get locked down fighting yet another darkspawn patrol/geth incursion/group of the enemy of the day. Other players view it differently, and may adjust the difficulty and actively seek out enemies accordingly. This is fine.
What I despair of is one group criticising the other for their choice of gameplay method; how you play a game is your own business, and as long as you derive enjoyment from it (and/or satisfy a compulsion of some sort), your method of going through the game's motions is entirely valid.

For the record, on Dragon Age, I chose to slide the difficulty down and play entirely as my character - I enjoyed the role-playing, even if it did make the combat a little trickier when I completely ignored most of my party - they had the gambit/combat tactics system to help them!