Games with great story but bad gameplay

[veloper]

There are no videogames with good stories; there are videogames with good stories-for-a-videogame, which translates as nice/okay.
If you cannot make it as a novelist or a movie director, you can always impress gamers. A magnet for failures who would rather make movies, but couldn't make it; that's what the game industry is turning into.

Seriously? That's a ridiculous generalization. You have every right to be cynical, but just because you haven't personally experienced something does not mean IT DOESN'T EXIST, and no one on The Escapist is going to appreciate you putting such a judgment on an entire medium.

That's where you are wrong. I've experienced just about every game that comes highly recommended for it story. I can safely make my claims.

I'm not impressed with the quality of storytelling in games. Read a good book or watch a good movie, THEN compare to your Walking Dead or To the Moon, etc.

What's mediocre or decent by normal standards, becomes bloody Game of the Year material to gamers. It is we gamers who should experience more things in general.

 

[alphamalet]

lack of game play doesn't mean bad game play as that is what the developers intended. Bad game play is when the game play mechanics they do use aint solid enough. Saying i didn't like that it had QTE's doesn't work as a argument.

Lack of gameplay is almost always unjustifiable as well. If extremely minimal gameplay is present, and doesn't add to the experience, you shouldn't be making a game.

not really that's whats great about games, there are no boundaries and you shouldn't try and define what a game can, cant do. for example heavy rain is a interactive experience and i love it for that and i also love its game play style. if you don't like that type of gameplay fine but that doesn't make it "bad".

There is a difference between interactivity and gameplay. Something can be interactive, and not be a game. Heavy Rain (from what I remember) has interactivity, not gameplay. If you are going to make a "game", then underutilizing gameplay does a disservice to what you are trying to make, and the medium as a whole. If you are making an interactive experience then fine, but stick to that and don't get bogged down with needless gameplay that will interrupt the pace of the experience.

Also, there are authorities on the subject matter that have defined gameplay, interactivity, and what constitutes a game. There is some grey area to it, but the quintessential component that is required for it to be a game is gameplay. To gloss over and disregard it is not the mark of a successful endeavor in the medium.

The point: Basically, if you want to make a game, then you need to give adequate focus to the gameplay. If something other than gameplay is the primary concern, then you need to rethink the medium that you have chosen.

if that's what they want to make you cant stop them from doing that. What other medium would you suggest as TV and film have no interactivity at all. Heavy rain had game play elements where you walk around the environment. "does a disservice" how? heavy rain couldn't have been made any other way as it doesn't follow traditional game play tropes. Just because its different from what you normally expect doesn't mean it has any less merit. By my standards if i interact with it its a game. I hate the word game anyway, i prefer the term interactive entertainment.

I have been studying game design at a university for four years, and I can tell you that interactivity does NOT constitute a game.

Interactivity purely means to be able to have input in a system, with a result.
Gameplay is the partaking of a challenge within a system, defined by rules, in which a quantifiable outcome results.

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified. It would be like calling the ability to move your mouse and click icons on your desktop gameplay. You don't play your desktop, you interact with it.

You're right, Quantic Dream can make whatever they want, and I can't stop them, but merely undertaking a different endeavor in an established medium does not automatically constitue a successful entry to that medium. I think Heavy Rain would have been better if it were a film, a visual novel (which has interactivity), or a series of videos. Walking around environments hardly lead to anything meaningful, presented no challenge, and broke the pace of the game. If I remember correctly, even Yahtzee complained that the beginning of the game had you walking around doing stuff that amounted to nothing. That isn't helping Heavy Rain with it's primary goal which is to tell a story. The thing about telling a story is that that are a plethora of other mediums better suited for doing that sort of thing, where it can and should be a primary focus. If people wanted nothing but story, they would read a book or watch a movie, but people pop in video games because they want to PLAY something.

 

[Fleetfiend]

I'd agree for the most part, although I really did enjoy the gameplay in Suikoden 2 for Playstation. The story was phenomenal, but the gameplay was still fun. First off, there was an auto-attack option for when you were just fighting random trash and had optimized your build enough to take them. You could get a lot of variety and there were a lot of hidden stats to discover. You could easily beat the game without grinding or minmaxing, but if you did find those secret strategies it was hilariously easy at some parts. But most of the fun there was in the out-of-combat micromanagement. In combat you were pretty much just pushing buttons, but I'd prefer that to games that try to make the combat itself "fun" with ATB crap.

There are definitely some awesome exceptions. One that comes to my mind is The Legend of Dragoon. Just by adding the simple ability to create combos based on timing made it JUST interactive enough that it wasn't as boring to me as many turn-based games tend to do when I get around halfway through the game. After that it's usually just cutting myself through the gameplay until I can see the story.

Final Fantasy Tactics is another decent example, but it's not turn-based in the same way that most RPGs are that I was referencing.

 

[wakeup]

lack of game play doesn't mean bad game play as that is what the developers intended. Bad game play is when the game play mechanics they do use aint solid enough. Saying i didn't like that it had QTE's doesn't work as a argument.

Lack of gameplay is almost always unjustifiable as well. If extremely minimal gameplay is present, and doesn't add to the experience, you shouldn't be making a game.

not really that's whats great about games, there are no boundaries and you shouldn't try and define what a game can, cant do. for example heavy rain is a interactive experience and i love it for that and i also love its game play style. if you don't like that type of gameplay fine but that doesn't make it "bad".

There is a difference between interactivity and gameplay. Something can be interactive, and not be a game. Heavy Rain (from what I remember) has interactivity, not gameplay. If you are going to make a "game", then underutilizing gameplay does a disservice to what you are trying to make, and the medium as a whole. If you are making an interactive experience then fine, but stick to that and don't get bogged down with needless gameplay that will interrupt the pace of the experience.

Also, there are authorities on the subject matter that have defined gameplay, interactivity, and what constitutes a game. There is some grey area to it, but the quintessential component that is required for it to be a game is gameplay. To gloss over and disregard it is not the mark of a successful endeavor in the medium.

The point: Basically, if you want to make a game, then you need to give adequate focus to the gameplay. If something other than gameplay is the primary concern, then you need to rethink the medium that you have chosen.

if that's what they want to make you cant stop them from doing that. What other medium would you suggest as TV and film have no interactivity at all. Heavy rain had game play elements where you walk around the environment. "does a disservice" how? heavy rain couldn't have been made any other way as it doesn't follow traditional game play tropes. Just because its different from what you normally expect doesn't mean it has any less merit. By my standards if i interact with it its a game. I hate the word game anyway, i prefer the term interactive entertainment.

I have been studying game design at a university for four years, and I can tell you that interactivity does NOT constitute a game.

Interactivity purely means to be able to have input in a system, with a result.
Gameplay is the partaking of a challenge within a system, defined by rules, in which a quantifiable outcome results.

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified. It would be like calling the ability to move your mouse and click icons on your desktop gameplay. You don't play your desktop, you interact with it.

You're right, Quantic Dream can make whatever they want, and I can't stop them, but merely undertaking a different endeavor in an established medium does not automatically constitue a successful entry to that medium. I think Heavy Rain would have been better if it were a film, a visual novel (which has interactivity), or a series of videos. Walking around environments hardly lead to anything meaningful, presented no challenge, and broke the pace of the game. If I remember correctly, even Yahtzee complained that the beginning of the game had you walking around doing stuff that amounted to nothing. That isn't helping Heavy Rain with it's primary goal which is to tell a story. The thing about telling a story is that that are a plethora of other mediums better suited for doing that sort of thing, where it can and should be a primary focus. If people wanted nothing but story, they would read a book or watch a movie, but people pop in video games because they want to PLAY something.

So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact. not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point. Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story. how would that work as a film. unlike yahtzee i greatly enjoyed the beginning as it set up the characters and made you care.the bottom line is you simply don't enjoy that type of game but dont try and down play the people who loved it because they have every right to. i guess you didn't like the walking dead too.

 

[lumenadducere]

Alpha Protocol should be the immediate answer for this question every time.

I'm inclined to agree. Alpha Protocol did so many amazing things with its story, characters, and choices, but it really flopped with the gameplay a few times. I really wish more studios would write the way Obsidian does.

 

[Moth_Monk]

An old example:

Dreamweb

An interesting cyber-punk conspiracy but with really boring, lazy gameplay.

 

[Papadam]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Silen Hill 2 yet!
Easily one of the best video game stories made but the gameplay is pretty bad.

 

[alphamalet]

snip

So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact.

Everything I stated on game theory, and what makes a game is not an opinion. It is the product of research and study by authorities on the subject mater. Gameplay is required to have a game. Gameplay is the quintessential component of the medium that noting else has, therefore it must be the primary focus for a successful game. Gameplay is not the same as interactivity. I can't make it much clearer. Perhaps you need to study more if you don't think any of these are the case.

not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point.

Becuase without a "game over" or failure state then there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge then there is no game. You can put the controller on the floor during the QTEs of Heavy Rain, and it will still move forward. The parts where you have to walk around the environment drag, and they flat out tell you what need to do, or where you need to go. I and most people think that those sections, the closet thing to gameplay in Heavy Rain, were unnecessary and hurt the pacing. If you think otherwise then you are entitled to that opinion, but you're in a minority.

Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story.

These consequences, again, are derived from interactivity, and not gameplay. Interactive visual novels have a a better-suited environment for this sort of storytelling. My challenge to you is justify why this needed to be a "game"? Where is there any meaningful gameplay (not interactivity), and what does it add? If you have no answer, then Heavy Rain has failed as a game, and would have been beter suited for another medium.

 

[alphamalet]

sorry double post

 

[Lt._nefarious]

The Longest Journey
GREAT story, good characters, nice music, interesting locations.
Too bad it was BORING to play, with most puzzles being 'look up the FAQ because this thing is broke yo.
-Hell, and I LIKE point-n-click adventures.

Oh, I've been meaning to find out about the Longest Journey. Is it great, I just bought but I'm not sure whether to install it?

OT: Silent Hill 2... Well a bit. The sickening camera, horrifying controls and combat like pulling teeth did add to the atmosphere and what have you but...

Also Dragon Age: Origins, TWD and Catherine...

 

[wakeup]

snip

So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact.

Everything I stated on game theory, and what makes a game is not an opinion. It is the product of research and study by authorities on the subject mater. Gameplay is required to have a game. Gameplay is the quintessential component of the medium that noting else has, therefore it must be the primary focus for a successful game. Gameplay is not the same as interactivity. I can't make it much clearer. Perhaps you need to study more if you don't think any of these are the case.

How though? heavy rain was sold as a ps3 GAME. you might have to explain this to the 3 million plus people who brought it as one. I don't think you understand the word fact as whoever these people you keep referring to have no way of convincing everyone to agree with them, ever. Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point.

Becuase without a "game over" or failure state then there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge then there is no game. You can put the controller on the floor during the QTEs of Heavy Rain, and it will still move forward. The parts where you have to walk around the environment drag, and they flat out tell you what need to do, or where you need to go. I and most people think that those sections, the closet thing to gameplay in Heavy Rain, were unnecessary and hurt the pacing. If you think otherwise then you are entitled to that opinion, but you're in a minority.

the challenge is to try and get the best ending, sure you can do nothing but that would result in a dark ending and everyone one would die. no challenge = no game, i don't get where you get this from and i disagree that there is no challenge in heavy rain. and sure, you know the opinion of every heavy rain player out there.

Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story.

These consequences, again, are derived from interactivity, and not gameplay. Interactive visual novels have a a better-suited environment for this sort of storytelling. My challenge to you is justify why this needed to be a "game"? Where is there any meaningful gameplay (not interactivity), and what does it add? If you have no answer, then Heavy Rain has failed as a game, and would have been beter suited for another medium.

Why this needed to be a game beside the fact that people decided to make it one. Well if it wasn't a game i would have no interest in it what so ever yet as a game its one of my Favorites. it adds tension, the sense of being there, an attachment to the characters, the feeling of guilt and most importantly the feeling that its me controlling the story. You can continue to enjoy the same games with the same mechanics while i play some unique games that try to do something different. not sure what your problem is with playing something a little different now and then, don't worry you will still have your generic games to fall back on as they are not going away.

 

[alphamalet]

snip

How though? heavy rain was sold as a ps3 GAME. you might have to explain this to the 3 million plus people who brought it as one. I don't think you understand the word fact as whoever these people you keep referring to have no way of convincing everyone to agree with them, ever. Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

I don't know what else to tell you beside that this just smacks of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. OF COURSE SONY MARKETED IT AS A GAME. If they didn't and called it a "digital interactive experience," most people would wonder what that was. Additionally, the people I am quoting are experts on the field of study. IT IS NOT AN OPINION! It doesn't matter who disagrees with them. You might decide to call a song a "movie", that doesn't make you right, or undercut the FACT that a song is a song.

Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

Look, I'm glad you are "studying" game design, but you need to appreciate that when someone who has a formal education on the subject matter tells you that what you are saying is wrong based on the discourse of experts in the field, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.

the challenge is to try and get the best ending, sure you can do nothing but that would result in a dark ending and everyone one would die. no challenge = no game, i don't get where you get this from and i disagree that there is no challenge in heavy rain. and sure, you know the opinion of every heavy rain player out there.

Saying that you can have a game with no challenge is just flat out wrong, again. You need a challenge to have a game. This is one of the simplest principles of game theory. You say the challenge is to get the "best ending". The "best ending" is something entirely relative to the person playing the game, and is going to elicit different emotions in each player that can't be quantified. Furthermore, this challenge you state is NOT derived from Heavy Rain's system of input/output, it comes from you, and was covered in my last post when I said all of this:

Prior Post:

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified.

Why this needed to be a game beside the fact that people decided to make it one. Well if it wasn't a game i would have no interest in it what so ever yet as a game its one of my Favorites.

This is just silly.

I can see that you failed my challenge of pointing to JUST ONE instance of meaningful gameplay. Doesn't that strike you as a problem in a GAME? Then you went on to say that it needed to be a game because they chose to make it one. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say someone has a real passion for music. They absolutely love it and what the public to experience their songs. Instead of just releasing it to the public in a traditional form, they instead decide they want to make a movie. This movie consists of about 20 soundtracks played to about five different still images that change over long periods of time on the big screen. Now you might like the music, hell you might even love the music, but you would be perfectly justified in questioning why it needed to be a film. After all, the quintessential aspect of a film is the rapid succession of still images (frames) to give the appearance of motion (full-motion video). If you aren't going to use that, and would instead just like to focus on music, then you shouldn't be making a film. It might have a gorgeous soundtrack, but it fails as a film.

Surely you would have to agree with this.
Now replace the word "music/soundtrack/songs" with story, replace "movie/film" with game, and replace "full-motion video" with gameplay and you have the exact same scenario at work.

Let me also add that your compulsory dismissal of other mediums of entertainment is a bit scary.

it adds tension, the sense of being there, an attachment to the characters, the feeling of guilt

What you are referring to is "suspension of disbelief." Movies, and books do all of this.

most importantly the feeling that its me controlling the story.

You can control a story in a digital visual novel as well, and you wouldn't have to be bogged down by the poor controls and needless roaming that Heavy Rain forces you to put up with.

You can continue to enjoy the same games with the same mechanics while i play some unique games that try to do something different. not sure what your problem is with playing something a little different now and then, don't worry you will still have your generic games to fall back on as they are not going away.

I'm not going to dignify this immaturity with a response. What I will do however is wish you well in your study of game design. Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but you have a LONG way to go. I used to think exactly as you did, and probably would have said much of the same things, before I read more into the subject. If you truly are committed to learning, I could recommend you a couple of great books.

Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman
Game Design Theory and Practice by Richard Rouse III

If you do end up reading either of those books then make sure you save this post. You'll get a kick out of it in the future. I'm going to let this conversation end here.

 

[Nothing Tra La La]

Rule of Rose, Rule of Rose, Rule of fucking ROOOOOSE
I love that game so hard. I would gladly sever a limb if it meant getting a movie adaptation (directed by Guillermo del Toro, if you please) for that incredible, wonderful game. But god DAMN, the gameplay makes RoR so utterly unplayable that it serious left me wondering if there was any playtesting for it at all.
I know that a big part of older survival horror games is rather clunky tank controls, but oh man... Rule of Rose suffers from the worst case of "useless protagonist" and ridiculously OP enemies that I couldn't bring myself to finish it. It's truly a shame, because the game's story and narrative is so damn good.

 

[wakeup]

snip

I don't know what else to tell you beside that this just smacks of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. OF COURSE SONY MARKETED IT AS A GAME. If they didn't and called it a "digital interactive experience," most people would wonder what that was. Additionally, the people I am quoting are experts on the field of study. IT IS NOT AN OPINION! It doesn't matter who disagrees with them. You might decide to call a song a "movie", that doesn't make you right, or undercut the FACT that a song is a song.

Before i end this discussion i have some points to make. Okay then if it isn't a game then what was it? Fundamentally it was a game. it wasn't sold as a movie, a book, a song or a visual novel. i frequent alot of professional gaming sites; the escapist, game trailers,CVG, ign, game spot i read OPM and Edge magazine every month. none, i mean none including this site has a problem calling Heavy rain a game and they all accept it as one. The thing is every one accepts and understands what a song is but not everyone agrees what makes a game, in fact there are many different views on what makes a game none of which are universally accepted.

Look, I'm glad you are "studying" game design, but you need to appreciate that when someone who has a formal education on the subject matter tells you that what you are saying is wrong based on the discourse of experts in the field, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.

Great for them. i just looked up the Definition of video games and guess what people disagree with them and provide alternate views on the matter. IM sure they would say your wrong as well. Please understand that what some people say in one country doesn't stay true to the rest of the world.

Saying that you can have a game with no challenge is just flat out wrong, again. You need a challenge to have a game. This is one of the simplest principles of game theory. You say the challenge is to get the "best ending". The "best ending" is something entirely relative to the person playing the game, and is going to elicit different emotions in each player that can't be quantified. Furthermore, this challenge you state is NOT derived from Heavy Rain's system of input/output, it comes from you, and was covered in my last post when I said all of this:

By this explanation alot of games are not games. QTE's can be failed in the game and the game presents them as being failed. therefore it is derived from input/output; there is a failure animation and a successful animation. another point, walking around the environment did present challenges such as finding clues. Did you even play the game.

This is just silly.

I can see that you failed my challenge of pointing to JUST ONE instance of meaningful gameplay. Doesn't that strike you as a problem in a GAME? Then you went on to say that it needed to be a game because they chose to make it one. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say someone has a real passion for music. They absolutely love it and what the public to experience their songs. Instead of just releasing it to the public in a traditional form, they instead decide they want to make a movie. This movie consists of about 20 soundtracks played to about five different still images that change over long periods of time on the big screen. Now you might like the music, hell you might even love the music, but you would be perfectly justified in questioning why it needed to be a film. After all, the quintessential aspect of a film is the rapid succession of still images (frames) to give the appearance of motion (full-motion video). If you aren't going to use that, and would instead just like to focus on music, then you shouldn't be making a film. It might have a gorgeous soundtrack, but it fails as a film.

Surely you would have to agree with this.
Now replace the word "music/soundtrack/songs" with story, replace "movie/film" with game, and replace "full-motion video" with gameplay and you have the exact same scenario at work.

Let me also add that your compulsory dismissal of other mediums of entertainment is a bit scary.

Games provide much greater opportunities to tell stories than films due to the interactivity and length. I've read this statement so many times on these forums. Attempting to tell a good story in games deserves merit and i support any company that tries. If you don't agree that story is hugely important in games that's your taste in games. this is why as a game it interests me more than it would a film. as a film it would just be another action/ thriller. as a game it tries to do more and seeing as through beyond:two souls looks to have more game play elements it wasn't a failure. Heavy rain was a experiment and it was successful. I didn't dismiss other forms of entertainment i dismissed the idea of heavy rain being another form of entertainment.

What you are referring to is "suspension of disbelief." Movies, and books do all of this.
You can control a story in a digital visual novel as well, and you wouldn't have to be bogged down by the poor controls and needless roaming that Heavy Rain forces you to put up with.

So movies can make you feel guilty for the actions you made, wow i didn't know they had the ability to do that. There's no way you can compare the experience of playing heavy rain or the walking dead game to a visual novel. They wouldn't be the same.

I'm not going to dignify this immaturity with a response. What I will do however is wish you well in your study of game design. Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but you have a LONG way to go. I used to think exactly as you did, and probably would have said much of the same things, before I read more into the subject. If you truly are committed to learning, I could recommend you a couple of great books.

Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman
Game Design Theory and Practice by Richard Rouse III

If you do end up reading either of those books then make sure you save this post. You'll get a kick out of it in the future. I'm going to let this conversation end here.

how is it immature, by your definition there cant be any new genre's of games or completely new game play mechanics. Again i will state what you are taught will be different to what im taught, different cultures value things different. By this i mean i will never agree with you and i don't plan on changing my opinion any time soon. I apriciate that your not trying to insult even if your post doesn't read that way. we are different people and you have to understand that people will disagree with you and calling them outright WRONG is insulting. TO leave this on a nice note thanks for the recommendations, i can see your only trying to help. If you plan on replying, please do as i always like a healthy debate as long as it doesn't get insulting. I really mean this, have a good day, i wish you well and hope you go far in this industry.

 

[laggyteabag]

Mass Effect - That story in that game is brilliant, and the first time I played through the game I didnt really have any problems, then I played through 2 and 3, and the pile of criticism just grew.

Boring weapons, no variety in weapon categories, and all of the weapons just felt weak
The Makos horrendous handling
Boring powers
Next to no distinction between classes
Boring combat
Exploring countless planets to find collectables/ codex pieces
Boring enemies

All of these factors together make me not want to play Mass Effect, because the majority of the game is just SO boring, so i just download Mass Effect 1 saves from now on.

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

In my opinion, I'd have to go with the original Halo: CE and Mass Effect.

Halo: CE had a fantastic and well crafted story. It wasn't the most original, but it was presented in a way I thought was pretty damn good. Problem was, the gameplay itself just felt... boring. Boring and overly repetitive, with many of the environments looking so samey I would occasionally get lost just because I couldn't tell if I was making progress or accidentally going the wrong way. Luckily later games fixed this, but the original I still don't think was that great gameplay wise.

And with Mass Effect, this one has probably been covered enough that I don't need to go into detail. It's one of those games that I want to get into because all of my friends adore it and so does my own boyfriend, the combat just... sucks, though. Sucks so badly I almost want to just skip over it and play through ME2 and 3 without finishing 1 instead.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I'd say the Halo series. They never quite gripped me as FPS games, they feel like an introduction to the genre, almost a tutorial-level game, but I do rather like the setting and try to keep up with the story.

Are you being satirical here? I've heard many criticisms of Halo but never that it didn't have solid FPS gameplay

 

[alphamalet]

snip

I honestly wasn't expecting a reply, but seeing as how you responded in a positive manner, it would be rude to not do the same.

Before i end this discussion i have some points to make. Okay then if it isn't a game then what was it? Fundamentally it was a game. it wasn't sold as a movie, a book, a song or a visual novel.

This has more or less been what the entire conversation has been about. We both know it was labeled as a game, but under a lot of contemporary definitions, it shouldn't be called one. That was the point I was trying to make.

i frequent alot of professional gaming sites; the escapist, game trailers,CVG, ign, game spot i read OPM and Edge magazine every month. none, i mean none including this site has a problem calling Heavy rain a game and they all accept it as one.

This is more out of convenience than anything else. If they call it a game, everyone knows what they are talking about. If they call it an interactive digital expereince (which is what its closer to) they lose people. I believe Yahtzee started his review of Heavy Rain by saying that it was interactive story telling experience as opposed to a game, but then continued to refer to it as a game for the sake of convenience. I would also like to point out that all of the websites you have listed are written by critics, not experts of game theory.

The thing is every one accepts and understands what a song is but not everyone agrees what makes a game, in fact there are many different views on what makes a game none of which are universally accepted.

You are right, and perhaps this is one of the things that makes the medium we both love great. My point however is that for something to be a game, it needs gameplay, and gameplay has a few stricter definitions. One of the accepted definitions was made a few posts back when I defined the difference between interactivity and gameplay.

Great for them. i just looked up the Definition of video games and guess what people disagree with them and provide alternate views on the matter. IM sure they would say your wrong as well. Please understand that what some people say in one country doesn't stay true to the rest of the world.

There isn't a specific definition for a game, but most all definitions will have this in common:

-artificial conflict presented as a challenge
-system defined by rules
-results in a quantifiable outcome

Heavy Rain lacks a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. If you go back and read what really defines a game (i.e. not Webster or a dictionary) then you will probably run across this.

By this explanation alot of games are not games. QTE's can be failed in the game and the game presents them as being failed. therefore it is derived from input/output; there is a failure animation and a successful animation. another point, walking around the environment did present challenges such as finding clues. Did you even play the game.

Exactly! When you start to deconstruct a lot of common system, then you begin to question what is and isn't a game! In regards to Heavy Rain, the "failure" of quicktime events are as relative as the "best ending". Maybe someone wants to see Shelby beat up, and therefore intentionally disregards a button press. In their mind, this is "success". The game does not penalize you or impede your progress for doing this, meaning there is a lack of sufficient challenge presented by the game. In terms of walking around environments to find clues, I remember Heavy Rain flat-out telling you what to do if you take long enough, further adding to the lack of challenge. If I remember correctly, the only time that didn't happen was in the night club, but IMO that was a poorly designed section that was ambiguos to what needed to be done for Madison to get the attention of some perv. While I was wandering around and trying to figure out what to do, the pace of the story was suffering.

Games provide much greater opportunities to tell stories than films due to the interactivity and length.

I disagree. INTERACTIVITY gives a lot of opportunity, but I don't think gameplay is in the same boat. Like I said earlier, interactivity can be accomplished without it being a game. Gameplay is necessary for there to be a game, and since gameplay must present a challenge with quantifiable results, it is VERY hard to interject story telling into the mix. This is why cut-scenes exist (which interrupt gameplay), and this has lead to a lot of veterans in the industry saying that they don't believe a video game is the best place to tell a story.

Also, movies might lack length, but a TV series doesn't.

I've read this statement so many times on these forums. Attempting to tell a good story in games deserves merit and i support any company that tries.

I agree, it is something that deserves merit, I just think it needs to be prioritized correctly.

If you don't agree that story is hugely important in games that's your taste in games.

But the thing is...story is not hugely important to the idea of a game. Don't get me wrong, I love a good game with a great story, but story is not necessary to make a game, or to have a great game. Gameplay is what is necessary to not only have a game, but have a good game. Look at all of the 1980s arcade games, games still being played to this day. They don't have any story, but what they have is very satisfying gameplay that has kept people coming back for years. Card games have no story, but I'm willing to bet you've been excited to play one at least once in your life.

Remember: A game can be a game with no story. A game can't be a game with no gameplay, it becomes something. Gameplay is the most important aspect; it's what defines the medium. Like I said, I love a good story, but gameplay needs to be prioritized.

So movies can make you feel guilty for the actions you made, wow i didn't know they had the ability to do that. There's no way you can compare the experience of playing heavy rain or the walking dead game to a visual novel. They wouldn't be the same.

Well, a movie can't, but interactivity with appropriate agency can. But like I said, interactivity with agency can exist outside a game.


Don't get me wrong, I like Heavy Rain just fine, it's just that I believe it fails as a game.

TO leave this on a nice note thanks for the recommendations, i can see your only trying to help. If you plan on replying, please do as i always like a healthy debate as long as it doesn't get insulting. I really mean this, have a good day, i wish you well and hope you go far in this industry.

I sincerely do appreciate this and wish you well on your study too.

 

[TheRussian]

Bioshock. Incredibly well written story, floaty easily broken combat.

 

[White Deer]

For me it'd be Spec Ops: The Line. It has a great story, but the gameplay is average.

What annoys me the most is that instead of a slider for the mouse sensitivity, the developers added a number system like on the consoles. My mouse is always either too sensitive or not enough.