Silicon Knights President: "Gameplay Isn't Everything"

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

No I do, and I understand what you are saying. My problem is that most people ( Or rather the people in my area of the U.S) will say a game/movie is bad, because it tries to tell a story. So gameplay is not everything, it is important, but games should not just be about it.

I feel the difference is when I go to a movie, I really want to say to myself "I saw something really cool." Saw can be in terms of cinematically or in terms of great story telling or compelling characters.

When I play a game, I want to be able to say "I Did something really cool". If a game robs me of the ability to say that to do all these wonderful things in game and I really had no say in it, it's like I'm pushing the character to his next angst mission instead of playing the character and having an immersive experience.

I do agree with you that a movie shouldn't be blasted by telling a story, but it should also be able to tell the story well. Once that's done, I think everything else can be forgiven.

 

[Woe Is You]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

Virtua Fighter, Team Fortress, Dwarf Fortress, Nethack, Super Mario Bros, Geometry Wars, Super Stardust, The Sims, Sim City, Civilization, almost every tycoon game ever, almost every shmup ever, Tetris, Lumines, Outrun...

Sure, story and gameplay can go hand in hand but I think there's enough proof that a story isn't necessary for a game to be good or even excellent. The list above is just a list of things I came up with in 30 seconds.

Are there games with a good story? Can a good story add to a game? Yes and yes. But gaming isn't and shouldn't just be a storytelling medium and there are plenty of types of games that don't tell story at all and still manage to be engaging for longer periods of time.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

"gameplay is not everything."

Me begs to differ, GAMES need good GAMEplay.

I'd initially agree but take the old point and click adventure games, for example. The brilliant narratives they had really shone but the gameplay was often a bit stale. Still, gameplay is the main factor, you need good gameplay as a foundation for the rest of the game.

 

[FinalHeart95]

"Lets make a game with horrible or, better yet, NO gameplay. However, it will have real actors, a phenomenal story, and-"

"Denis?"

"Yes?"

"That's called a movie."

 

[Pimppeter2]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

Virtua Fighter, Team Fortress, Dwarf Fortress, Nethack, Super Mario Bros, Geometry Wars, Super Stardust, The Sims, Sim City, Civilization, almost every tycoon game ever, almost every shmup ever, Tetris, Lumines, Outrun...

Sure, story and gameplay can go hand in hand but I think there's enough proof that a story isn't necessary for a game to be good or even excellent. The list above is just a list of things I came up with in 30 seconds.

Are there games with a good story? Can a good story add to a game? Yes and yes. But gaming isn't and shouldn't just be a storytelling medium and there are plenty of types of games that don't tell story at all and still manage to be engaging for longer periods of time.

Hmm. I'm just saying a game needs them to go hand in hand. Personally I like a game that has a good narrative more than a mindless shooty game. Everyone says Halo: Combat Evolved is the best game, even though gameplay was immproved in the sequals. Explain that.

All those games are good games...not great games.. with the exception of a few. Like Mario.

Final Fantasy. Mass Effect. Assasins Creed. Overlord 1. Oblivion. Alot of Rpgs Are games in recent years that I like that are story heavy and still good ass games


But think about games like Bioshock, Half life, Oblivion, ME, and more..

Those are great games because they go hand in hand

While you might think a game needs good gameplay to be fun, I find a game with a good storyline to be better than most gameplay games. Case and point. Shadowrun. It was a fun ass game, probably one of the funnest multiplayer games made. But since it had no story at all, It was blown out of the room. People wouldn't pay 60 bucks for gameplay only, but they would for story in most JRPGs

 

[Cody211282]

It could have the best story in the world but if its an unplayable crapfest no one is going to pick it up

 

[Woe Is You]

All those games are good games...not great games.. with the exception of a few. Like Mario.

All of those are regarded as excellent games despite their lack of story. Team Fortress 2? Widely regarded as an awesome game. Civ 4? Excellent scores all around. The Sims? It's one of the biggest PC titles of all time if not the biggest. And I probably don't even have to argue about Tetris and Sim City. And by now we're starting to reach almost half of the list so we might not be speaking about exceptions at all.

And as far as I know, two of the games in your list aren't even that good examples. Very few people I know actually played Oblivion for the story. All I know is that those that tried were sorely disappointed. And as for Overlord, well, I find that the perfect example where gameplay gets sacrificed for efforts to tell a story. In my case, at least, it didn't work at all.

Case and point. Shadowrun. It was a fun ass game, probably one of the funnest multiplayer games made. But since it had no story at all, It was blown out of the room.

No, it was blown out of the room because it wasn't that good of a game to begin with. On the PC landscape, anyway, it was a bland dime-a-dozen team multiplayer FPS with the only defining feature being cross-platform play with 360 players. It was also a game that actively crippled both console and PC users' controls. Doesn't sound like a good game to me.

A better example would probably be Team Fortress 2. Or Street Fighter. Both are games that are actively played to this day.

Like I said: an excellent game can have story and a story can add to a game (e.g. Mass Effect makes it part of the gameplay) but a story isn't at all required for a game to be that. But then again, I think game designers should cut back trying to design games like movies and focus on the interactivity part of the deal. And if you have a story to tell, try to tell as much of it through the game and not through cutscenes.

 

[Del-Toro]

Gameplay is the point, story and atmosphere are icing on the cake. Serious Sam, Painkiller, Doom, and the Age of Empires games proved that beyond all doubt, as have the better World War 2 games. Too Human was a bore to play, with shitty control. They should have hired another guy because I'm sure they could have done both if they weren't obsessing over a horribly done story and atmosphere.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Putting film industry techniques into games? No! Films are films and games are games! You don't put music in sculpture do you?

um, what?

Left 4 dead dips heavily from the film industry technique box to make the game look awsomely epic while being not too taxing on an individuals computer. things like high detail on areas that you want to draw attention, shaded screen top to bring focus down towards the ground, and film grained black so you can still 'see' despite the set being near pitch black.



it is the next thing to make games great, you start drawing things you've learned in art and film school to inncoperate it into the game.


now, to his specific statement.
Games don't need gameplay?

that is his distorted input which is ultimatly wrong which is kind of idiotic.
he goes on about the games are the '8th art' which is possibly true involving the next level of artistic flow, interactivity. however he then goes on to say that the key thing which is supposed to make up this catagory, the interactivity of it, is acctually not that important. that is like saying the thing which makes a film great (the moving pictures) would be better if they simply put up 20 minute long still frames.

 

[Zildjin81]

He never said games don't need good gameplay or that it wasn't important, he said that there is other important things too.

 

[TheOscarer]

LoL, lets just look at arguably the most successful game of 2007/2008: Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Now what made that game so successful? the multiplayer online... where is the narrative there? Looking at another massive game - World of Warcraft, where is the narrative there.

 

[Silva]

Gameplay in games isn't everything. It's the centre of everything.

That doesn't mean that pure gameplay will sell (which may well be the guy's true point). Instead, it's more like graphics, sound, and interfaces all contribute together to gameplay.

Gameplay is the total sum result of those aspects, which if done right and in a balanced, focused fashion, creates engagement and ultimately good critical reviews and (usually) sales.

In the best case scenario, this man's argument is just another attempt at generating controversy and therefore attention for his upcoming games.

If he really does believe what he's saying, then he really hasn't nailed what the true legend of the industry, Miyamoto, knew since the beginning (which unfortunately he's now deviated from). The rule is this: it is the sum which matters over the parts, not the other way around. And that sum is gameplay.

While his views on gaming as the Eighth Art make some sense, his attempts to describe adapting games with film techniques leave something to be desired. While it is good to learn what you can from the other arts, the thing that makes gaming unique is interactivity, and if you rely too heavily on film, you will lose a great portion of that uniqueness.

Gamers, both casual and hardcore, buy games because they're interactive. A film that's got some interactive parts will not sell well in the games industry, because it's not a game, and the customers know that.

It is possible to make a product like that sell well, but only if you really push the interactive portions of it and make it long enough to at least pass for a fair rental fee, like Heavenly Sword. Therefore, to sell, gameplay is essential.

 

[PsykoDragon]

It's all about balance.

 

[blaze96]

Help me here, what exactly is immersion? I assume gameplay means what you do in game and possibly control responsiveness, and graphics, sound, and story are self-explanatory. Is immersion the control scheme such as Motion control versus traditional, or something else entirely? Immersion seems to be a rather vague term which could mean just about anything to just about anyone, so can someone clarify this for me?

 

[Pimppeter2]

snip.

I'm not trying to agrue with you. I'm just saying {b}the best games[/b] have story and gameplay going hand in hand. Obiously you need good gameplay, its like saying if I made agame off Crime and Punishment. Sure its a good read with a great story, but 1 murder and spending the rest of the game sick isn't my exact defenition of fun. Story should play a big role in games. As for oblivion, TES lore is about as thick as a country wide phonebook. Overlord 1 was repetitive and sometime straight up boring, but the story was so good it had me pushing to the end.

Any ways. I agree with the begining of you last statement. But I don't think we should stray from making games more like films. I'll give you a perfect example... Jak 2. It had great gameplay and a great story... One of the best games of all time.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Putting film industry techniques into games? No! Films are films and games are games! You don't put music in sculpture do you?

um, what?

I was saying that games and movies should be kept seperate, like music and sculpture. I'm probably wrong about music and sculpture but I couldn't think of anything else.

Like Mustard and Cheerios.

 

[WrongSprite]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

You don't need story at all. If I want story, I'll read a book, or watch a film. Games are about gameplay, and fun. Mount&Blade is a good example, there isn't a story, yet its amazingly fun.

 

[lostclause]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

You don't need story at all. If I want story, I'll read a book, or watch a film. Games are about gameplay, and fun. Mount&Blade is a good example, there isn't a story, yet its amazingly fun.

There are plenty of games which had mediocore gameplay that was enhanced by a good story. SS2's gameplay was bog standard rpg but the story is good. Assassin's creed as well, the good characterisation allows you to overlook some of it's faults. Not to say that a story should be more important but it can be at least an equal and still have positive results.
That said, you can a game without story but a game without gameplay is a movie.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

You don't need story at all. If I want story, I'll read a book, or watch a film. Games are about gameplay, and fun. Mount&Blade is a good example, there isn't a story, yet its amazingly fun.

No...you don't need a story. Personally, I think a great narrative is needed to have a great game..in this day 'n age. Except Mario, Mario rocks

Still...It basically comes down to..."whatever floats your boat!"

 

[Doug]

Story and Gameplay can go hand in hand. When will people learn that you need story.

You don't need story at all. If I want story, I'll read a book, or watch a film. Games are about gameplay, and fun. Mount&Blade is a good example, there isn't a story, yet its amazingly fun.

Mount and Blade does have a story - it has the vague background story, and then the story YOU generate for your character via your actions.