Enjoyable Streams of Decisions

[Lullabye]

I completely disagree, mostly on this: "Games are problem generators. They create streams of challenges that we love to solve - over and over and over. It is this, rather than narrative or emotional engagement that defines a good game - the other stuff can be left to films and books; they do it pretty well."

Whilst I do not disagree that problem-solving can often be the most attractive part of some games, there are plenty of games where the greatest reward is simply advancing through the story. To disregard that with such a statement is a little insulting to the developers who work so hard to push narrative.

Trying to say that narrative can be left films and books ignores the fact that game narratives are very different: whilst films and books require no input (other than watching/reading), game narratives actively need the player to progress them.

It's because of that that the advancement of story can be just as rewarding as the completion of a puzzle within a game. The latter often leads to the former anyway.

Nice article though.

I completely agree. For oh so very many games I've played, the only thing driving me through it is the story. Mostly games with terrible terrible gameplay.
However, that isn't to say hat a game with good gameplay couldn't interest me story wise.
In fact, right now I'm playing Tales of Vesparia. Whilst the gameplay is fun, it's really the story I'm playing it for.

 

[VGStrife]

Gotta say i disagree.

A moment that defines this that i have found recently is the last trial in Heavy Rain.

It was the combination of the interactivity and the emotional attachment to the character that made the decision, not a problem that needed solving (i failed the test BTW, despite now knowing the outcome either way).

But then again I'm not a fan of Tetris and the like, so I cant really relate.

 

[PixieFace]

As a massive fan of Sid Meier's Civ series AND of the great narrative-based games produced by Bioware, I cannot completely agree with the statement that:

"Games are problem generators. They create streams of challenges that we love to solve - over and over and over. It is this, rather than narrative or emotional engagement that defines a good game - the other stuff can be left to films and books."

It is true that many games are defined by the continuous stream of choices and challenges that a player must undergo. For the sake of not repeating your article, I'll simply say that he success of the Civ series proves this to be true.

But to say that narrative has a 'lesser' place in game design is absurd. Games provide a great opportunity for story telling. Games offer the unique advantage of being able to have the player interact with a story, to feel apart of it rather then simply a viewer. (And no, I don't simply mean by giving a player two endings to a plot. That's a cheap and overused attempt at encouraging replayablity in games.) Engaging stories and characters combined with interactivity can create an emotional experience that is at least equal to that of a well made movie, if not better.

My main point is this: There is no 'better way' to game design. Both provide unique and enjoyable experiences, and to argue that one method is better then the other is stupid. Surely having both is the best direction to head in? In fact, if gaming is to continue to develop as a medium and entertainment product (and art form, depending on your opinion on the topic), then both approaches to the medium MUST be explored. Diversity in games is a good thing.

Hi! Welcome to the Escapist. Excellent first post, you made all of the points I wanted to make.

There are a lot of players out there like myself who cannot stomach a game when the story is terrible, even if the gameplay itself is good. Far Cry did that for me. There came a point for me where I just stopped caring about the dumb characters and even dumber plot. I couldn't even make it past an hour in Gears of War before getting supremely annoyed at all of the SUPER MASCULINE MEN RARRGHHHH TESTOSTERONE.

In a game that HAS a story in the first place, the story needs to be good. If it has characters that I play and interact with, they need to be engaging because I'm going to be spending a lot of time with them. A story should never be thrown in as an afterthought. That's just emulating the faults of brainless Hollywood films.

This is why I love Bioware epics. Knights of the Old Republic will forever be my favorite game; I progressed BECAUSE I loved each and every one of the characters. It was emotionally engaging and I found myself on the edge of my seat to find out what happened next. Hell, I'd play for hours upon hours and not realize it because I was enjoying myself so much. Not only that, but the gameplay itself was infinitely fun. There were puzzles to solve and there was a great amount of strategy involved. It had everything and I was kept thinking about it long after the credits rolled.

You can't just discount classics like that. Favorites like Tetris lay a foundation, yes, but great stories build upon that basic principle of problem to solution. It gives the product depth and meaning other than solving a puzzle. I agree that a game needs to be a game, but a great story should never be discounted because it "doesn't belong".

That's just dumb.

 

[GothmogII]

You're a ludologist, and that's okay. Narratology is here to stay.

Though, I much prefer games with both, solid underlying game play infused with an excellent story, I can still when it comes down to it, enjoy a game's game -and- what what often amounts to interactive novels with few gameplay elements other than click here and here and on her to proceed, achem. In this regard, it is simply that I am presented with an interesting idea that is executed well in this manner that brings me true joy when playing a game.