Deus Ex Scribe Says Gameplay Trumps Story

[Vault101]

I've never cared about a single video game story I've ever been forced to choke down as I played a game. Not one. They're meaningless fluff and a waste of time in my opinion. A game can be completely non-sensical and be a blast to play. Because they're supposed to be played, not watched or listened to.

Is watching someone else play a video game as fun as playing it yourself? No. Then why is it fun to watch an NPC play your game for you? I always feel like someone just grabbed the controller out of my hand with these current generation games, everytime a cutscene occurs. It's like they're trying to blend television with gaming. I don't want to watch a movie dammit, I'm here to do things -myself-. If I wanted to watch someone else talk or think for themselves, I'd go turn on the TV.

I like to make my own story, which is probably why I like Bethesda's games more than any other. If someone is boring me with their life story, I can just run past them (or kill them hehe ).

This is one reason why I was SO disappointed with Mass Effect. I thought we were finally being given a dynamic world where NPCs were (somewhat) intelligent and could be conversed with like real people. Instead we got scripted robotic dummies and terribly long cutscenes watching Shepard be the hero. Not us, but an NPC. Boring.

I disagree, a game can be fun to play (for a while) but If im going to see it through to the end I need a reason or If its going to really stick with me....like after Iv finished a game I can go WOW! that was AWSOME!! a good story does that, without a story it just becomes kind of shallow

Im sorry but gaming would be 100% worse if we did away with storys all together and when done well stories dont have to get in the way of gameplay and vice versa

 

[Thoric485]

Wholeheartedly agree. Gameplay should be used as a storytelling tool, and story should be every game's backbone - not the shooting/swordfighting itself. Especially in RPGs.

Look at The Witcher for instance - it initially had very badly translated dialogue. A thing like that would be a dealbreaker for a story-driven RPG, yet it was still recieved favorably, because the dialogue itself was a relatively small part of the storytelling. Story was for the most part actively conveyed through the non-linear gameplay itself - the detailed NPC behavior, both friendly and hostile, coupled with the day/night cycle and the way your choices from previous main quests and side quests all visibly overlapped. The widely-dissed combat itself was meant as a storytelling tool - and on highest difficulty (and with the awesome FCR mod) i think it succeeds. It becomes completely dependant on preparation, knowledge of your enemy, tactical use of spells, consumables, fighting styles, combos and positioning. And after reading the books, i can say it comes really close to what's described there and represents it much, much better than any widely-accepted RPG combat system would.

I should mention at this point that the article's name is a bit misleading. Here's the important part of the quote:

"If [the story] is making use of the gameplay, and recognizing gameplay as one of the elements for conveying the story, then you build a really powerful experience. The story gives you an emotional attachment, a reason to understand your motive, and it allows you to immerse yourself in this thing that's not a part of your life."

The way i understand it she means gameplay should serve the story, while the story is what keeps us playing and and engages us on an emotional level.

And i completely support that. We should not still be getting games based around a certain gameplay mechanic template, just outfitted with custom art, story and setting.

What we should get are different stories with gameplay mechanics specifically tailored to convey them in a fun, immersive, unique way. Games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, GTA 4, Red Dead Redemption, the upcoming LA Noire. These are the games that are meaningful and really move the medium forward.

 

[Moeez]

According to DeMarle, the best games blend the two disparate elements into one cohesive whole. "If [the story] is making use of the gameplay, and recognizing gameplay as one of the elements for conveying the story, then you build a really powerful experience. The story gives you an emotional attachment, a reason to understand your motive, and it allows you to immerse yourself in this thing that's not a part of your life."

And that's why I loved ALAN WAKE. It was all about merging the storytelling within in the gameplay, which left for a lot of memorable moments that wouldn't have been as epic if they were just a cutscene.

http://www.gameinformer.com/resized-image.ashx/__size/610x0/__key/CommunityServer-Blogs-Components-WeblogFiles/00-00-00-91-32/0181.Alan_2D00_Wake_2D00_00.jpg

There are loads of examples from the game, but if you've played it I'm sure you know most of them.

 

[noble cookie]

Agreed! I'd rather play a fun as hell game with a shit storyline, than play a game with a great story but mechanics so bad i rip out my own eyes.

 

[Arec Balrin]

I love how so many of the comments in this thread are agreeing with Mary DeMarle but think they're disagreeing with her.

I know you almost certainly think mine is one of them.

But it ain't.

Deus Ex HAD to compromise on it's gameplay to become one of the greatest games of all time. So did Bioshock eight years later. Deus Ex could not have worked if it had 'good' gameplay.

Err well an example of the two working in harmony is when kill Anna when order to execute the prisoner on the jet and the story adapts to fit players actions. Which what got the main jist of the article is praising.

DeMarle makes an important statement also which is to my mind incorrect: that in the relationship between merged gameplay and narrative that it is gameplay that leads and narrative which follows. One example would be the concept of Mana in fantasy games where gameplay dictates that spells must have a reasonable limit and narrative says this needs an explanation for the extent of its presence in the setting.

As regards Deus Ex, I completely disagree and had they made the game more 'fun' in the simple joy of movement and combat as is the gold standard of first-person shooters, they would have failed to make Deus Ex and instead we'd have something else called Deus Ex. What Ion Storm got wrong was so much better than what they got right. The Walton Simmons fight was terrible and had they looked at it and decided "we need to improve the combat" then the game would have died there and then all because of one scene.

I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex.

Seriously have ever read warren spectors reason for making Deus ex he wanted fuse stealth/shooter/talking/exploration into one great game there all gaming aspects. Secondly "I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex." the game isn't even out so no way you can make call like that to early even if you are a fan one way or the other on your opinion of the prequel.

Oh no? Dude: I was first and alone in calling Bane as the big bad in The Dark Knight Rises here. Bane!

You're not actually arguing with my point though; I do not dispute there are merged concepts and I think 1999 to 2001 was a golden age of PC gaming where many merged-concepts were experimented with and too few were supported because of timid gamers meaning classics like Sacrifice, Citizen Kabuto and Hostile Waters that could have evolved into great series were lost. The one survivor of their legacy was Deus Ex and my point is that it didn't compromise on it's ambition except in the one area where conventional wisdom said it shouldn't be compromised: the gameplay itself. Moving JC Denton about is not as smooth or responsive as Gordon Freeman or the Quake marine. Using his equipped weapon is not the visceral or satisfying pleasure that Duke Nukem or Turok gave. Deus Ex compromised on combat and movement; the things which are the core of a first-person shooter and if they had not been the way they ended up then everything else wouldn't have worked.

I think of Hitman: Blood Money and the significant improvement to both the stealth-style play and the shooter-style play and whilst for fans Hitman was made better. For others Blood Money made it too easy to win by playing it like a third-person shooter, I have a friend that never realised you could even complete missions without being detected. That is a game that could have benefited from some Deus Ex-ising and reduced the ease and satisfaction of mass-murder in favour of planning and guile.

 

[murphy7801]

I love how so many of the comments in this thread are agreeing with Mary DeMarle but think they're disagreeing with her.

I know you almost certainly think mine is one of them.

But it ain't.

Deus Ex HAD to compromise on it's gameplay to become one of the greatest games of all time. So did Bioshock eight years later. Deus Ex could not have worked if it had 'good' gameplay.

Err well an example of the two working in harmony is when kill Anna when order to execute the prisoner on the jet and the story adapts to fit players actions. Which what got the main jist of the article is praising.

DeMarle makes an important statement also which is to my mind incorrect: that in the relationship between merged gameplay and narrative that it is gameplay that leads and narrative which follows. One example would be the concept of Mana in fantasy games where gameplay dictates that spells must have a reasonable limit and narrative says this needs an explanation for the extent of its presence in the setting.

As regards Deus Ex, I completely disagree and had they made the game more 'fun' in the simple joy of movement and combat as is the gold standard of first-person shooters, they would have failed to make Deus Ex and instead we'd have something else called Deus Ex. What Ion Storm got wrong was so much better than what they got right. The Walton Simmons fight was terrible and had they looked at it and decided "we need to improve the combat" then the game would have died there and then all because of one scene.

I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex.

Seriously have ever read warren spectors reason for making Deus ex he wanted fuse stealth/shooter/talking/exploration into one great game there all gaming aspects. Secondly "I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex." the game isn't even out so no way you can make call like that to early even if you are a fan one way or the other on your opinion of the prequel.

Oh no? Dude: I was first and alone in calling Bane as the big bad in The Dark Knight Rises here. Bane!

You're not actually arguing with my point though; I do not dispute there are merged concepts and I think 1999 to 2001 was a golden age of PC gaming where many merged-concepts were experimented with and too few were supported because of timid gamers meaning classics like Sacrifice, Citizen Kabuto and Hostile Waters that could have evolved into great series were lost. The one survivor of their legacy was Deus Ex and my point is that it didn't compromise on it's ambition except in the one area where conventional wisdom said it shouldn't be compromised: the gameplay itself. Moving JC Denton about is not as smooth or responsive as Gordon Freeman or the Quake marine. Using his equipped weapon is not the visceral or satisfying pleasure that Duke Nukem or Turok gave. Deus Ex compromised on combat and movement; the things which are the core of a first-person shooter and if they had not been the way they ended up then everything else wouldn't have worked.

I think of Hitman: Blood Money and the significant improvement to both the stealth-style play and the shooter-style play and whilst for fans Hitman was made better. For others Blood Money made it too easy to win by playing it like a third-person shooter, I have a friend that never realised you could even complete missions without being detected. That is a game that could have benefited from some Deus Ex-ising and reduced the ease and satisfaction of mass-murder in favour of planning and guile.

Yer I am saying you judgemental idiot who saying that they already know the outcome of the storyline to a yet to be released game. Also read the reason behind deus ex creation also bioshock did no innovation what so ever if you played system shock 2. Secondly your arguement decide the reason why Deus ex is story line heavy tend to involve actual technology limitations of the time which are very common in deus ex. Do you know what is ground breaking in Deus ex is the multi approach to problem solving every decent review will say that which is game play mechanic but deus ex great secondary writing as in it the back burner to give you motivation.

 

[Arec Balrin]

I love how so many of the comments in this thread are agreeing with Mary DeMarle but think they're disagreeing with her.

I know you almost certainly think mine is one of them.

But it ain't.

Deus Ex HAD to compromise on it's gameplay to become one of the greatest games of all time. So did Bioshock eight years later. Deus Ex could not have worked if it had 'good' gameplay.

Err well an example of the two working in harmony is when kill Anna when order to execute the prisoner on the jet and the story adapts to fit players actions. Which what got the main jist of the article is praising.

DeMarle makes an important statement also which is to my mind incorrect: that in the relationship between merged gameplay and narrative that it is gameplay that leads and narrative which follows. One example would be the concept of Mana in fantasy games where gameplay dictates that spells must have a reasonable limit and narrative says this needs an explanation for the extent of its presence in the setting.

As regards Deus Ex, I completely disagree and had they made the game more 'fun' in the simple joy of movement and combat as is the gold standard of first-person shooters, they would have failed to make Deus Ex and instead we'd have something else called Deus Ex. What Ion Storm got wrong was so much better than what they got right. The Walton Simmons fight was terrible and had they looked at it and decided "we need to improve the combat" then the game would have died there and then all because of one scene.

I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex.

Seriously have ever read warren spectors reason for making Deus ex he wanted fuse stealth/shooter/talking/exploration into one great game there all gaming aspects. Secondly "I think the ailment that Deus Ex was spared has unfortunately infected Human Revolution deeply. Even if it turns out to be a good game, it will not be worthy of being called Deus Ex." the game isn't even out so no way you can make call like that to early even if you are a fan one way or the other on your opinion of the prequel.

Oh no? Dude: I was first and alone in calling Bane as the big bad in The Dark Knight Rises here. Bane!

You're not actually arguing with my point though; I do not dispute there are merged concepts and I think 1999 to 2001 was a golden age of PC gaming where many merged-concepts were experimented with and too few were supported because of timid gamers meaning classics like Sacrifice, Citizen Kabuto and Hostile Waters that could have evolved into great series were lost. The one survivor of their legacy was Deus Ex and my point is that it didn't compromise on it's ambition except in the one area where conventional wisdom said it shouldn't be compromised: the gameplay itself. Moving JC Denton about is not as smooth or responsive as Gordon Freeman or the Quake marine. Using his equipped weapon is not the visceral or satisfying pleasure that Duke Nukem or Turok gave. Deus Ex compromised on combat and movement; the things which are the core of a first-person shooter and if they had not been the way they ended up then everything else wouldn't have worked.

I think of Hitman: Blood Money and the significant improvement to both the stealth-style play and the shooter-style play and whilst for fans Hitman was made better. For others Blood Money made it too easy to win by playing it like a third-person shooter, I have a friend that never realised you could even complete missions without being detected. That is a game that could have benefited from some Deus Ex-ising and reduced the ease and satisfaction of mass-murder in favour of planning and guile.

Yer I am saying you judgemental idiot who saying that they already know the outcome of the storyline to a yet to be released game. Also read the reason behind deus ex creation also bioshock did no innovation what so ever if you played system shock 2. Secondly your arguement decide the reason why Deus ex is story line heavy tend to involve actual technology limitations of the time which are very common in deus ex. Do you know what is ground breaking in Deus ex is the multi approach to problem solving every decent review will say that which is game play mechanic but deus ex great secondary writing as in it the back burner to give you motivation.

Sorry but....wtf? 'Outcome of the storyline' is not something I mentioned and the rest of your post is just...what are you talking about?