Gameplay That Doesn't Match With The Story

[DishonoredElderSouls]

I actually love Far Cry 3 even more because of its gameplay-story desynchronization. It's really amusing to play through the story with another person, or talk about the game afterwards, and just heckle and mock the fact that Brody's character is an attempt to feel vulnerable, scared, and unskilled, but then right as the game kicks off it places you in the gameplay-based feet of someone completely different, capable of shooting a flare gun into a tiger's face, pulling off sick bow shots, running over dozens of people, slicing throats, and killing f***ing crocodiles that have him in a death lock.

The gameplay itself is more than strong enough to avoid this becoming a game-ruining problem for me. The pirates you encounter are rather goofy, caricatured versions of their real-life counterparts ("good thing I'm too high to be afraid!") with a handful of jelly beans for brain cells, which makes the whole thing feel a lot more acceptable.

Another example would be games such as Oblivion, New Vegas, and Fallout 3, in which by the end of your journey you have single-handedly probably murdered more than half of the denizens of each game's respective setting.

Fallout 3 & New Vegas: I can carry around a hundred miniature nuclear bombs, but picking up one more paperweight will cause me to break my back.

The Sly Cooper series: A bunch of adorable animals set out on a grand, lighthearted adventure, and euthanize, blow up, drown, run over, feed to bears, electrocute, punch, kick, shoot, and throw from massive heights thousands of mercenaries who are probably getting paid lousy wages for a single nightwatch.

BioShock Infinite was a poorly done game and one of my least favourite experiences of this generation.

 

[Evonisia]

I'd argue Real-time Strategy games fall into this pit, it's actually pretty funny sometimes. In Halo Wars there's a cutscene where a bunch of humans get ambushed and several die from a single needler shot to the throat, yet when gameplay commences you see marines stomaching about 10 shots before going down.

Oh yeah and BioShock Infinite, just all of it. The gameplay and story are two seperate entities in that game, unlike BioShock 1 (and even 2).

 

[Mikejames]

The issue with Bioshock: Inifite is that the developers gave it the same type of gameplay as the first Bioshock, yet it's set a perfectly functioning society. In Rapture it made sense that you ate chocolate bars out of trash bins and that audio loges were strewn all over, because the place was a stripped mess. It made sense that you shot everyone you came across, because they were all insane, addicted mutants.

In Columbia this isn't the case at all. I think the only reason the developers made the inhabitants of Columbia racists is so that you as the player feel validated in shooting them all.

Well said. The way Booker can forge through all the trash bins for miscellaneous food-stuffs is pretty comical compared to the survivalist feel that the original game had with it.

I wish that Infinite could have had more psychotics and monsters like the original gameplay trailers showed us. It feels odd emphasizing the impact of murder and death in a functioning society when you're gunning down endless waves of nameless mooks.

 

[Rariow]

snip

You do bring up a valid point, but to be honest I wasn't using Dragon Age as an example because it's particularly bad in this respect - most of the time you're fighting people you have a pretty good reason, as you so well explained in your post - as much as simply as another game where you kill ungodly amounts of people in the name of a greater good. I'll admit, it's been quite a while since I've played that game, so my memory is blurry at best, but I have memories of attacking a fort or castle of some kind near the end of the game where you kill tonnes of soldiers who are just doing their jobs to achieve one of your objectives. Yes, there is the greater good and so on, but for a game that's painting you as the hero that'll save the land from evil, having compulsory fights like these just seems counter-intuitive. If I'm a hero, I should be doing heroic things, if you see what I'm getting at here.

You're also right in that it hit me a lot harder in Dragon Age 2. Half of the people you fight in that are just everyday shmoes that happen to be in your way when you break into place X.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

snip

You do bring up a valid point, but to be honest I wasn't using Dragon Age as an example because it's particularly bad in this respect - most of the time you're fighting people you have a pretty good reason, as you so well explained in your post - as much as simply as another game where you kill ungodly amounts of people in the name of a greater good. I'll admit, it's been quite a while since I've played that game, so my memory is blurry at best, but I have memories of attacking a fort or castle of some kind near the end of the game where you kill tonnes of soldiers who are just doing their jobs to achieve one of your objectives. Yes, there is the greater good and so on, but for a game that's painting you as the hero that'll save the land from evil, having compulsory fights like these just seems counter-intuitive. If I'm a hero, I should be doing heroic things, if you see what I'm getting at here.

You're also right in that it hit me a lot harder in Dragon Age 2. Half of the people you fight in that are just everyday shmoes that happen to be in your way when you break into place X.

Are you maybe thinking of the bit when you've been imprisoned and are breaking out? Because that's... yeah probably one area where I can see it's borderline... but you are kinda breaking out of prison so you can, y'know, not be tortured to death and die before you can stop the Blight. Sure, the guards are basically innocents, but it's a no-win situation. You either cut through them to freedom to avoid being killed by their boss or you accept death to save them - but in doing so you also doom them, because y'know the whole Blight thing.

The end is darkspawn all the way from "point of no return" engagement to end credits, but that prison thing is pretty close before that so maybe that's it. On the up side - if don't wait for your friends to come get you - you can use a ruse to pretend you're a guard either by yourself or with your cellmate and then you don't have to kill anyone on the way out, you just have to do a little song and dance for the captain and some dialog moments. Of course - if people break into the prison to come fetch you, it's basically a fight from that point on, which... makes sense. Not super-heroic (getting yourself out of trouble, no lives lost, being self-sufficient is def. the more heroic route, but you do miss some funny dialog from companions as they try to BS their way into your cellblock), but at least it figures.

And no worries, not looking for a scrap, just open to different interpretations and interested in them.

I agree though on the whole-sale slaughter of regular folks (even guards to a point) by the "hero" is typically counter-intuitive. I think a lot of people do - I think that's why we get such generic badie groups now like "bandits" all over the place, because at least that offers some flimsy justification, but every bandit is potentially someone's mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter regardless. On the other hand... they usually pull a knife or a gun on me as I'm walking up too, so... choice doesn't come into play when they "turn red" and are marked out enemies. I think that's something linear games (even story driven ones) end up having to handle - open world games (Fallouts, Elder Scrolls, etc.) don't... as much. I find myself creeping up on the first being I encounter in a cave or a fort that is not a mission destination (where I know what I'm walking into, like "go to the Necromancer cave" I know what's probably in there) just to see when the "pickpocket" option comes up if they are a y'know person, a non-hostile, someone important enough to have a name, or "bandit" before I one shot them from a shadowy spot. Just in case.

 

[Olas]

The new Tomb Raider is basically the definition of this.

"oh no, I'm a poor lonely archaeologist, I can't do anything, oh killing this deer and this one guy was really hard I'm gonna go cry for a bit, now to go kill 500 men."

I agree that it makes no sense the way Lara becomes female rambo literally overnight, but there is a line in the game that at least addresses it.

"...i had to kill people..." Roth: "...it must have been scary..." Lara: "...it's scary how easy it was..."

Personally I feel this way with any game where characters can't get shot or hurt in cutscenes, but then once gameplay starts up they can suddenly take 5 or 6 shots and shake it off. Tomb Raider is actually an example of this as well. There are scenes where we actually see Lara stop to treat wounds she's sustained during previous cutscenes, never mind the fact that she's been shot literally hundreds of times by now in gameplay segments.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I remember watching a video on this not too long ago.


Other than that, I just have to say that I think that stories are often just thrown onto a prebuilt mechanic. They tend to be an afterthought to the whole experience, and that is a problem. Everything must work towards a common goal, from the art style to the mechanics to the music to the menu screen. Even the smallest nitpick must work towards the common goal.

 

[Fox12]

There were a few wierd moments in Mass Effect 2.

"Killing someone in cold blood isn't you Garrus, I think you should spare sidonis." Just killed 500 mercenaries, a small army of robots, and bus full of orphans just to get this far.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Both Dragon Age games + everything involving blood magic.

Fenris says not to excuse some mage because unlike hawke he is a blood mage *gasp*. Ignoring the fact that, at least in my case, hawke literally is a blood mage.

Using blood magic in front of the entire landsmeet in front of all the Ferelden nobility in front of the leader of the Ferelden branch of the chantry and nobody bats an eyelash.

DA2 is way worse with it though. Constantly using magic 24/7 and the templars act like they have no idea whats going on. And everyone bitches about how evil blood magic is, but Hawke is never even close to being at risk for possession or anything. I mean you can use the sacrifice ability to cut up Fenris to increase your power and he doesn't even think of rebelling against you or even getting mad.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Dark Souls (as much as I hate to complain) isn't entirely consistent with Undeath.

You can't die, you just revive at a bonfire (your "home").
Your enemies can't die.
NPC's die permanently and never respawn, whether human or Hollow.
Some undead Hollows leave corpses, others dissolve.*

The game doesn't clearly spell out the mechanics of Undeath though, so this could potentially be excused.

Spoiler

Hollows almost always leave corpses. But some NPCs (and some hollow NPCs) don't.

The Darksign branding the undead triggers when they are killed, returning them to a bonfire. According to an item description (Homeward miracle spell), Bonfires sort-of serve as a "home" for the undead.

Perhaps partially-hollowed undead return to their bonfire or other "home" location when the Darksign triggers, while completely-hollowed undead have no home to return to?

Seglinde says she's had to kill her father before, but he's not hollow when you meet him. When she kills him, his corpse remains behind, unlike when you kill an NPC. Perhaps that's a sign he's completely lost.

 

[TakeyB0y2]

In Devil Survivor 2, some characters end up in situations where they might die if you don't show up to save them in time from whatever is going to kill them.

If you manage to show up on time, the character will be alive, but you'll still have to keep them alive and protect them from demons/rioters/ect.. If they die during this battle, even if you have a revival ability, it's instant game over, even in the two situations where these characters are forced to be directly playable during this battle, meaning you could actually use the revival ability on them when they die (you can't use it on NPCs or the demons of NPCs).

However, if you don't show up on time, the character will die permanently, but the game still goes on.

I won't even touch on the whole "character dies but you have revival spells!" tropes typical in most RPGs. No, what bugs me is this:

- If you don't show up to the event on time to save a character in trouble, they will die, but the game will still continue.

- If you do show up on time, but the character dies during the battle, you get a game over.

Why? Why can't the game just go on as if you didn't show up on time?

 

[Abomination]

I always found it strange in Infinity Engine games like Baldur's Gate and Planescape that you can only have five and NO MORE than five followers. Someone won't join you because you have too many people with you? I can understand having issues with the type of company you keep but surely the number is an entirely arbitrary thing. Sure, I understand there could be balance issues but just make it so all experience is divided among the number of members you have. 100xp going to 10 people is just 10xp each.

X-Com's combat has always been weird but in the latest turn based installment it's just punishing how much of a disconnect there is... but that can be said for almost any turn based game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm going to say Black, an obscure (never seen it mentioned here anyway) PS2 shooter. You're supposed to be playing this "maverick" soldier going after some sort of terrorist cell and disregarding orders from your superiors. So instead you follow orders from the HUD! It's funny when you have friendly AI yelling at you "Don't go in there, Kellar!" and the screen flashes "Go in there, Kellar". Every mission is also headed by a brief live-action cutscene where Kellar is getting interrogated by some dude, like the worst thing ever just happened and you're collecting your memories. But in reality it's just a pretty straightforward shooter where every mission is routine "start here, end here, kill as many enemies as you want in between". Hardly the dramatic experience you would surmise from watching the over-the-top shakycam cutscenes.

 

[Mr Dizazta]

Spec Ops: The Line is the one game where i felt like gameplay and story belonged to entirely different games. The great story about the evil of war and killing and the random cover based shooter with body count in the hundreds and the horrible ai just felt completely unrelated.

I think that was the point of Spec Ops: The Line. I mean that gameplay and story don't match on purpose because it was trying to use its mechanics as a metaphor. It was trying to force the player to feel uncomfortable.

 

[broca]

Spec Ops: The Line is the one game where i felt like gameplay and story belonged to entirely different games. The great story about the evil of war and killing and the random cover based shooter with body count in the hundreds and the horrible ai just felt completely unrelated.

I think that was the point of Spec Ops: The Line. I mean that gameplay and story don't match on purpose because it was trying to use its mechanics as a metaphor. It was trying to force the player to feel uncomfortable.

I understand that the point was to make the player feel bad for killing people and it mostly worked on me, but the effect was lessened because of the more arcade-like game mechanics (like killing hundreds of enemies or the stupid enemy behavior), so if that was meant as a metaphor it didn't work on me. I think that the game would have worked much better if the contrast would have been between the story about the evils of killing and shooting a relative small number of believable enemies as it would have made the world (and thereby the story) more believable and would have made me fell more discomfort as i had enjoyed the shooting more.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The Metal Gear Solid games. All the talkie scenes were about how violence is wrong and life should be lived, or something. Honestly I kinda zoned out when they got to jibber jabbering. Then you hide in a cardboard box and sneak up on a guard and knife him in the back.

 

[Baddamobs]

The new Tomb Raider is basically the definition of this.

"oh no, I'm a poor lonely archaeologist, I can't do anything, oh killing this deer and this one guy was really hard I'm gonna go cry for a bit, now to go kill 500 men."

go to war, get appointed to the front lines "holy shit I've never killed ANYTHING before. Oh crap a bomb car just exploded and we're being surrounded." After killing 24 enemy soldiers, I realized that when your life hangs in the balance you do what needs to be done. Even if you spent the next 11 years with night terrors, insomnia, and social issues, you still do what needs to be done



NOW, back on topic. If there's one game I could think of it would be Castlevania Lords of Shadow, the story talked about how with every stage Gabriel (main character) gave himself more and more into darkness. Eventually he's completly engulfed by it and not a trace of humanity remains to be seen in him... according to the narrator that is, from beginning to end Gabriel looks, talks, acts, and fights the same way. Yeah way to converge the fact that I'm becoming something worse than what I set out to kill in the first place Konami :/

Dude, he wasn't saying it isn't believable, he was just pointing out that the gameplay doesn't match up with the story... you know, like everyone else is doing in this thread?