254: Playing for the Story

[blizzard77]

I agree. I'm suffering through DA:O on Normal but I finally got around to clearing out the Mage Tower and when I got trapped by the Sloth Demon, I collected all of the shapeshifting options in the wrong order so it was stupidly difficult. I had to switch down to casual on numerous occasions. On Divinity II Ego Draconis, I ended up playing the entire game on easy just because that game was absolutely ridiculous. If your opponent's level was higher than your own (which is the case for the first 10-15 levels) then you're going to die even if you pull off the -health potion- -attack- -health potion- scheme, which I personally am quite talented at. And when you're two to three levels above your opponent, it's very straightforward and easy. I would like to go back and play it on regular, just to prove that I can, but I was pulling my hair out over the monotony of watching the same cutscene over and over just to get my ass handed to me. No regrets. I feel like this article captures the definition of a plotline in a RPG, because in my opinion games like DA:O and Fable II and Oblivion and Divinity should have the gameplay merely as a fun challenge where the reward is the next cutscene and cause-effect decision making.

 

[wonkify]

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.

You misunderstand my point. It is perfectly appropriate to still use arcade type mechanics in arcade type games, but are they really needed in other game types? More story intense or role playing type games? Or are they an anachronism that game designers are just comfortable using, or assume the gamers themselves expect from a sense of familiarity even though some completely different mechanic might be far better. Breaking new ground is tough.

It is a challenge to post anything to do with gaming. If you advocates anything people seem to leap to conclude it is a slight against what they like. One doesn't presuppose the other.

No slight against arcade style games or game mechanics is implied or intended.

 

[rddj623]

I like your conclusions. Playing games the way you get the most enjoyment out of them is a great way to play.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

There have been times where I just wasn't good enough at a game to play at any difficulty higher than 'normal', and I'm okay with that. As a girl, it was kind of expected for me to play the lower settings.

Lately, however, I've gotten to the point where I can play those difficulties (and do), but... there'll always be those games where it's more about enjoying the story rather than being paranoid that I'm gonna die any second if I slip up (I'm looking at you, Metal Gear Solid). Logan makes an excellent argument, and I'm grateful that one more person sees it the same way.

 

[WolfThomas]

I actually loved the combat in Dragon Age, I ended up turning the difficulty to nightmare. There was something that felt so satisfactory about dispatching a half a dozen enemies in second due to proper combination of abilites (cone of cold and anything that crits for example). But at the same time I also got really engrossed in the story as well, playing for maybe sixty hours.

 

[Miumaru]

I understand this. Sometimes its just "I just wanna beat you and get on with it." However I would not stay on easy, but plenty of times have adjusted difficulty temporarrily for the sake fo continuing. Oblivion I play with the slider a bit down, so I retain my edge. (However I am replaying on default for the sake of challenge, even using potions as normally I never do in ANYTHING ((aside form perm boosts, like Fable's Elixers)))

 

[turbo_girl]

I still struggle a teensy bit with my pride when switching down the difficulty, but what it all comes down to is that I just plunked down $60 on this thing, so I'll do whatever it takes to enjoy it.

Also, being able to toggle difficulty in the middle of a game is just magical. Every game (more or less) with a difficulty level needs to have that feature.

 

[Dora]

For the longest time I was entirely about the story. If it didn't have volumes of dialogue and exposition, I wasn't interested, and I would spend hours tracking down every NPC in every village in every RPG to hear whatever pearl of one-liner wisdom they had for me about Old Man McRunsTheInn.

And now I can't sit through something for more than fifteen minutes unless someone gives me some form of (preferably semi-automatic) weaponry and points me at a bunch of targets. I do still require an interesting and moderately well-written story to enjoy myself, but I am so much more action oriented than I used to be. I tried to play one of the old SNES RPGs I used to love like Breath of Fire the other day, and I was absolutely boggled at how bored I was. With the exception of a few enduring favourites like Secret of Evermore or Earthbound, I find myself too impatient to sit through more story-oriented games.

I mean, it does vary, somewhat. In Dragon Age's instance, I found both the combat and the story to be sufficiently enjoyable that I wasn't grinding my teeth waiting for one or the other to end, but at the same time, a lot of those sidequests went unfinished. Lady, I do not have time to make you some goddamn potions; there are things out there RIGHT NOW going un-stabbed because you won't quit wagging your jaw at me.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I went a step further and just ended up cheating my way through DA:O. Yes, you can all crucify me now. I plead guilty.

I think this is the natural last step, rather than turning it down to easy [which thankfully is available mid-flow in games nowadays]. But the RPG nature of these games, similar to Diablo 2 and even before is that the difficulty just stacks on itself and if you don't want to do the monotonous grinding then eventually you're going to come up short, no matter which difficulty you're on.

Whether developers do this to flesh out the gameplay time or to force you to 'enjoy' their atmospheric areas a bit longer is a toss up.

 

[Otterpoet]

I did 'cheat' once during Dragon's Age: Origins (in the Morgan quest) because after eight or nine times of having my party wiped out, it just got tedious. And frankly, I wanted to be true to my character's story, i.e., protect Morgan. I found this article very much in the spirit of what I love about games... the story first, game-play second. One look at my collection and it says it all.

Perhaps that's why I enjoyed Dragon Age: Awakening far more than the original. My character was so powerful by that time, combat became a pleasant compliment to the story, rather than dominating my attention. And the story itself was far more intriguing, IMHO. Pity it was so short.

 

[braincore02]

This outlook reminds me of the switch that occurred in my mind regarding cheating. For a long time I refused to cheat in games, looking for the well balanced challenge the designers intended for me. As my free time grew more sparse however, I realized the game I just rented that wasn't all that good would be much more enjoyable if I just turned on some cheat codes and whizzed right through it. After that I never had a problem with cheat codes or adjusting the difficulty lower. If I can't answer yes to the question "Am I having fun?" I might as well tilt the scales in my favor. Seems reasonable to me. Most of us don't play games to work, we play them for fun, so anything goes.

If a game is fun as designed and seems worth the time, however, I will still go uncheating until the moment it fails to entertain me.

 

[Grahav]

I prefer normal difficulties (aka: not insane challenges) with good stories

 

[ImpostorZim]

I guess the only example I can come up with at the moment is how I enjoyed Fahrenheit (The Indigo Prophecy). From my traditional perspective (that is, a gamer who enjoys a challenge once in a while) I found it odd that the game wasn't particularly challenging me, or even punishing me for messing up half the time. It was all about the story. Lucas' story, my one of a kind experience. That's just something I'd never get from a repetitive game like Mega Man, a series of games I adore for it's challenge, but despise for its lack of a decent storyline.

 

[Skratt]

Very well said. It's nice to read about others who share the same frustrations. I mean it's kind of a bad thing when superior storytelling, rich environments and promising concepts are overshadowed by repetetive gameplay elements that make you want to dislodge some of your teeth with a pair of pliers.

Ever since the development timeline has gone from months to years, gameplay innovation became that scene in 2012 with Woody's character watching the volcano. Sure it's amazing at first. Then you realize the fallout will last for years. What once was unique is now a nuclear winter of suck as great titles are filled with distraction and filler.

Poor design or unfortunate nature of the beast?

 

[bjj hero]

Im all for playing your game your way. You've paid for it so enjoy it. Having said that my first Dragon Age play through I turned the difficulty up from normal (I forget what the next level up is).

I really enjoyed it, I had to learn how to kill dragons, work out strategies for multiple opponents, was guarenteed and injury after fighting an ogre for most of the game (surely ogres are meant to be terrifying juggernaughts, this made sense to me), be careful with crowd control spells due to friendly fire and keep my healing items topped up. I didn't touch gamefaqs etc, if I missed something I missed it.

I loved it, it felt gritty and dangerous like the odds were against me. I couldn't kill Revanants until most of the way through the game and got lots of satisfation when I finally did. All of my choices were made "in charecter". A noble who was bitter about losing everything and dragged into a war he wanted no part of. When I finished the game I got a sense of acomplishment that I've not had for a while in gaming.

I felt like I'd earned victory through guile, determination and strategy.

I invested a lot of time and emotion into that first play through, although I made some poor skill choices that rogue is still my favourite charecter. I don't think I could give that much to the game again and following play throughs have been on normal and far easier. Easy enough to make the choices I want and develope the charecter I want.

It's a fantastic game, I wouldn't mock someone for playing on easy but I found it easy enough on Normal and believe people have lost out on something special when not trying it on the harder settings.

 

[Grey_Focks]

I'd say I value gameplay above story, but not by a lot. Some games I will play for story, but if the gameplay sucks, why not save myself the time and money and just watch all the cutscenes on youtube? On the otherhand if a game has a bad story, but it's still mind-numbingly fun, I can forgive it. As I've aged my tastes have changed quite a bit. There once was a time when JRPGs were far and away my favorite genre, and I would buy one even if it sucked...needless to say, never, ever again.

I actually disagree with you on one point, as I thought Mass Effect 2 was one of the few games I've played in recent memory that had fun gameplay AND good story.

Oh, and I also far prefer single player to multiplayer, to the point where I just don't play any VS anymore. Makes gaming far less stressful, to be honest.

 

[Yokai]

This is exactly how I felt about Mass Effect. I thought the gameplay was okay, but it was bland, generic third-person-shooter fare. I was far more interested in the conversations than the shooty parts.

 

[CopperBoom]

They totally get in the way.
I find as I get older I am a fan of video game stories and interactive storytelling, but not videogames. I still play tons, but what is fun has really shifted.
I never play a game beyond the easiest setting anymore.

 

[Jaebird]

Oddly enough, I've never been much of a fan of the kind of story-telling in games such as the first Mass Effect, but when I played the sequel, I never realized how much I missed the long conversations that unfolded the story in front of me. It almost became annoying when I had to get into gunfights, because I just wanted to see where my decisions can take me.

I guess after trudging through Final Fantasy XIII's terrible story-telling, I started to pine for something better. It kinda how if you rely too much on special effects in movies, the story will suffer as a result.

 

[Uncompetative]

It is not about challenge, it is about freedom of choice and how most modern games interfere with player agency to adhere to a narrative that has been predetermined - often by some spod who can't write for toffee.