Forget everything else, the greatest draw to gaming is the story. Sadly however, it seems that story and brilliant ‘gameplay’ is mutually exclusive, so while it’s the most important thing to keep us playing it’s rare we get a great story bundled with a great game. At least the public knows where the balance should be though – it’s not the case of us putting up with shooting things with no reasoning whatsoever, because if we did, Call of Duty would be a best sell- Oh.
All the Half Life 2 games have been the same, and not that amazing. Before you pull out the pitchforks, think back on it. I played each of the episodes so far in order recently, and if I see one more damn see-saw puzzle, that cute puppy I keep on the windowsill next to me for the use of threats involving cute animals will fly through the window. But Valve get away with it in nearly every review, with only Yahtzee complaining (You know, because it’s Yahtzee) with the brilliant line ‘… and so many see saws. Well done Valve, you made a physics engine, now make a game!’
When Craig did his review of Dragon Age, he said it was the best game he’d ever played. I’ve not completed it yet so I won’t be making a massive comment about it, but I’ve found the first section dull. It was mostly combat, which I found boring and a case of clicking until the things died. I spent a good 20 minutes in the camp just speaking to people and learning the history of the Grey Wardens, but the first job I had to do involving the outside world with combat I found uninteresting and a waste of time. It reminded me greatly of Baldur’s Gate – I never liked the combat in it, I sucked at it, and I suck at DA’s combat because I don’t have direct control over what was going on. Yet I have very fond memories of the plot in BG and still love the story to this day.
Bioware seem to have a habit of doing this. Mass Effect is something similar. The combat was slightly more interesting than the clickfest that I find Dragon Age to be, but I still found it annoying. The lack of localised damage, combined with the fact that my partners in crime were as useful as arsenic flavoured chocolate made me angry, until I just detached myself from the combat and just let my hands do it by themselves.
Why is it that RPGs get all the narrative fun? God knows. It must be related to their D&D roots. Those who’ve ever done D&D (Or any form of tabletop gaming), will know that it isn’t about rolling some dice and moving some models. There’s always a reason, a backstory or some lore that explains why people should be doing this.
There are some games that aren’t RPG that manage to become well respected even though their game play was pathetic. Fahrenheit is something like that. Out of the hours you plug into it, I’d say about you’ll spend 13% shouting at the fact it didn’t pick up your mouse gesture, 34% in some form of Quick Time Event and the rest engaging the back-story of the characters. It also got been slammed to pieces for its ending so many times that it’s not worth bothering to write anything about it, but most people that I know who played it said it was a brilliant game until it became the Matrix, but without the awesomeness. In fact, most people told me to stop as soon as it got there.
It could be argued that the storytelling technique of Farenheit may have saved it from my condemning eyes, but something like Bioshock can’t hide behind that. The novelty of a new storytelling technique doesn’t apply here: Bioshock’s technique isn’t unique to it (System Shock did it, Deus Ex was fairly similar). Although I enjoyed the combat at first, I discovered that it was bugging me that I could do the Big Daddies in a fairly formulaic way. What brought me back to it was Rapture. Underwater cities aren’t new, but underwater cities where the society has collapsed and people rush at you and try to kill you have that little tingle of freshness that we all love. The people were a bit on the unfriendly side, but the city, and the decent into chaos brought me back, time and time again.
As you may have guessed from the sentiment I stated about Call of Duty, I found that uninteresting and a waste of time. This is the prime example of where a stupid and repetitive game is reviewed as actually being stupid and repetitive. Half Life is fairly repetitive, and as I said before, got away with it. I’m probably unpopular now for attacking two fairly prominent franchises, but it’s so true! Both of them are so similar, yet HL is a better game because the story worked and the characters were human. I just can’t bring myself to say the same about CoD.
I also can’t tell you to rush out and buy Crysis. A brilliant graphical engine, but I didn’t enjoy the combat. I didn’t see what was so special about it, or why people wanted to talk about it constantly. It was repetitive, with every 3 minutes the next checkpoint appearing with more people that you had to kill. Far Cry 2 did the same and it annoyed the hell out of everyone. I finished Crysis out of a sense that it might get better, but it didn’t. The story was pathetic and clichéd, so I didn’t enjoy it or want to recommend it to anyone.
There’s a pattern emerging here: Games that should by all accounts be cast into the dust are getting away with it by giving me a rich, deep and varied lore to dive into. Why is it that so many people don’t use that? I don’t care that I can activate a slow motion reflex thing while doing a back-flip with my guns drawn. That just becomes a gimmick, and I’ll see through it and get bored. Give me a back-story, give me a living breathing world and I’ll still carry on playing your game even though the actual gamer in me is screaming to be released.
You can still enjoy your gaming where you get to shoot things. But the most enjoyable games are those that entice you to immerse yourself in this hand crafted world. I’m firmly of the belief that I started gaming was story and I think this still hold true 10 years later. WoW and other MMOs have never appealed to me, I found CoD to be a waste of space, yet give me Dragon Age, Mass Effect and Half Life and I can be lost for hours. I play for a story, not for a blood rush, and I’m proud to admit it.
I can’t believe you didn’t like the combat in Dragon Age. It’s brilliant – tactical, physical, brutal, all the good things ending in ‘al’. Anything where people are regularly impaled with one sword to be decapitated by another is good in my book.
The post makes a good point anyway, and for me it rings the truest with adventure games. I hate their twisted logic puzzles and crappy inventory systems, but the story is often second to none so it often keeps me ploughing through.
I read somewhere that playing Dragon Age on medium or higher changes the combat. It might just be that, but I don’t know. I did find it a clickfest and didn’t feel in charge. I’m all for a diceroll telling me how much damage I’ve done, as long as I get to choose when to attack personally.
It’s definitely more than a clickfest. For one thing, there’s an element of task juggling in almost all of the more challenging battles – you have make sure all your people are doing the right thing, at the right time. Sometimes it reminded me of a gory Diner Dash.
I’m not sure whether it’s just because I don’t have the mental capacity to deal with it or whether I just don’t like it.
Like I say though, I like the game. I’m just not enjoying the combat. It’s high in my list of things that I need to finish. It might just suddenly click and I’ll start enjoying it.
Fun and provocative article, by the way.
Interesting stuff. I’m totally going to write a counterpoint to this on Wednesday.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Bring it.
Though I could easily have argued that you can have a brilliant game without story, and a brilliant gameplay mechanic. Just Cause and Prototype spring to mind there. Both have an absolutely shoddy story, but it’s all mindless chaotic fun.
I’m glad you didn’t, it leaves me something to write about :) To be honest I’ve been a little stumped this week. I’ll try and keep the name calling and general personal abuse to a minimum.
Who said there was cause to be civil?
I think the difference is though that Just cause will never be talked about in the same way that plot heavy games are. Sure it will get mentioned with a chuckle, but it won’t be discussed in the same way that Mass effect or whatever will be.
But in Mass Effect, you talk about which person you saved, the character you had sex with etc.
But in Just Cause you can say ‘LOOK! I MADE PRETTY EXPLOSION! AND THERE WAS MUCH DEATH’. It’s unfair to compare them as they are completely different games.
We’re stealing Paul’s post here aren’t we? Ah well. Then we can get him for plagiarism.
Don’t you worry – I can duck and weave around any comments you’d care to post.
And better examination bodies than you have tried :)
I’m curious Patrick, did you just play Mass Effect 1 or 2 as well? I only ask because the latter has been often described as no longer an RPG, RPS went as far as to label it the first of a new ‘guns and conversation’ genre.
2 is also on the “Why the hell haven’t I played this yet” list.
The point still stands. I didn’t really enjoy Mass Effect’s combat. I played a sniper, and the sniper I was using at the end took pretty much everything out in one hit, with splash damage to boot. It was basically a case of aim, fire, forget.
I love both DA and ME2, but I like ME2 more because their “combat phases” are shorter. A friend of mine nailed the cause: You don’t like them because for you they are just delaying more “story phase”.
I think ME2 does a good job balancing both phases (DA doesn’t, sorry, still love it, but it doesn’t), but still, I want more story, less pew pew.
Cool article. And I think this is where games should’ve been heading towards from the beginning; the act of creating of an experience. Let me elaborate on that completely vague phrase.
It’s high time that the games industry started building worlds, instead of set pieces. Set pieces are good enough…for a movie. And because of their budgets, AAA games are only heading towards that direction (or rather, they’re sort of at this current stage where it’s sort of both a game and a movie, but “cinematic”). Some companies, however, are going the other direction, to the roots of what games are, IMO. Life simulators. If that doesn’t quite make sense, think about it for a second (I know it took me a while to understand this as well).
I really do think that gameplay and narrative can be merged together to form something special. I’ve recently been playing X-COM (you will now be one of my soldiers, by the way!), but man, it creates sort of this story that is coherent and just…good! By the way, EGTF died an explosive death as well as one of his comrades due to a floater grenade. Just sayin’.
I know this post is fairly rambly, but my point is, I think you’re on the spot here. We need worlds, we WANT worlds (see RDR, any GTA, etc.). Gameplay doesn’t necessarily get in the way (see the linearity of good games, see the openness of good games), it’s just a mode of presentation! But the world is still there.
Prepare to board the Skyranger, Patrick Rose. For the sake of your country and the world. It won’t be a pretty road to victory.
I’m not sure I agree that I want a world per se. More something to engage with. Linear shooters are enjoyable yes, but I can get tired of them because all I’m doing is a clickfest. But Half Life is a very linear shooter and quite a repetitive one, but the characters and story makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Also, if I die on my first mission Jay, I’m going to find you and poke you in the arm 30 times.
Ah, I was a little too rambly with my post. I agree with what you said, it’s more of what I meant.
Happily, you’re still alive and kicking (alien ass). You’re a Sergeant and you’ve gone on about 5 or 6 missions with about 10 or so kills. If memory serves. Hehe. Unfortunately, all of the other GD writers died. Poor Jim Rossignol was doing well as the Colonel of my bases until he got exploded with Tom by an alien grenade. Freakin’ Floaters in the desert.