Game Design

Walker

Yeah, man, video games, they're pretty cool. Despite having a "what are you playing" thread, we hardly ever discuss broader concepts of game design, and they're one of the few things I can confidently discuss in depth. This is a thread for talking about the aspects of games that we've see iterated on every year, relegated to niche markets, or abandoned for years; why they're there (or not), why we like them (or not), and how they might be improved/changed.

One of the things that's been bothering me lately is the huge divide between gameplay and storytelling. I'm not just talking about the dichotomy between precise player control and a cinematic experience, but the fact that the story and the game are almost always completely separate. Take Mass Effect 2; the story bit is where you talk to people and mold your character's personality, along with the fate of other characters, usually with your options limited to "good cop" "bad cop" and "neutral". There's not much of a game there, especially considering the how hard it is to "fail" a conversation, so the real meat of the play experience is in the shoot/slicing of dudes. Unfortunately, almost nothing about the shooting is effected by the characters, plot, relationships, emotions, or setting. Either I'm taking potshots from behind waist-high sci-fi crates, or I'm hiding behind wast-high alien containment pods. Occasionally I get new powers for being to nice to my friends, but that's about it. I think ME2 could have gone some way towards solving the problem by having more advantages and disadvantages cross over from gameplay to plot and vice-versa, but what they did is about as shallow as it gets.

That's one of the things that Braid and Passage accomplished, despite how much I love poking fun at them. In both of those titles the gameplay told a story, every move had a meaning, and every level was a plot device. What I wonder is how you would do that without the extreme abstraction of goombas representing life's various troubles and roadblocks, which only move when I move and I will always intersect with unless I take the path less traveled (or whatever that was supposed to mean). Heavy Rain tried to solve this, as well as the gameplay/cinema dichotomy, by making a QTE game, but that's not quite what I'm looking for.

What do you guys think? What's the best way to combine literal storytelling with gameplay? Am I missing games have already done quite well in that department?


EDIT: Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention how sick I am of the constant dick-fencing between console fanboys and PC fanboys. Please don't bring that shit in here.

Koholint

What's the best way to combine literal storytelling with gameplay?

I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you're trying to exclude by asking about "literal" storytelling, but I think the best way to combine storytelling and gameplay is to just give the player a huge sandbox to make his or her own stories with. Dwarf Fortress is an obvious example, but the gameplay isn't actually fun. Other games do it to a lesser extent, like maybe GTA or Far Cry 2. It's really hard to tell a linear story that doesn't conflict with the gameplay.

Geo

I honestly believe that the dilemma of combining the storytelling and a cinematic experience of a video game (which often comes with the territory of a story-heavy game) is one of the biggest humps that game developers are going to have to cross in order to push the medium forward. One of the main gripes I have with games in general nowadays are cutscenes. My gripe is that it takes away the interactive experience for any given amount of time (from 3 minutes to maybe even 30 minutes), and it throws me out of the game.

If you just want to watch cutscenes, go watch a movie. What makes video games work for me personally is that unlike other mediums of entertainment, it is a requirement to interact with it which I'm all about. There have been some games where there is some progress in the skill of blending interactivity and storytelling together and making it all work; the one immediate example that comes to mind is Fallout 3.

The moment in that game that I feel illustrates my opinion and my point in general is when the Enclave arrives at the Jefferson Memorial to put an end to Project Purity and you are behind the glass of the room your father is in as you watch him commit suicide.That scene was much more effective simply because I was not denied the ability to move or do certain things and I actually felt completely immersed in the storyline. If we could see and practice with examples like that more often, we might reach that goal much more quicker in the long run.

Walker

I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you're trying to exclude by asking about "literal" storytelling...

Nah, just the crazy abstract stories like that Passage and Braid tell. "Literal" was the only way I could think to describe the opposite of that.

Kiey

I'm going to point you to a blog post I wrote about this basic idea. To sum it up I saw a talk at GDC this year from the Cinematic Design Lead on Mass Effect 2, and he mentioned that they see the Mass Effect games as objective storytelling, while BioWare's other games are subjective. Subjective means that you are creating the character as the player (ie: Dragon Age,) but in objective the character is basically created for you (ie: Metal Gear Solid.) If that sounds confusing go read the post, I explain it a lot better there and in more detail.

Apreche

I see basically two solutions.

Solution #1 is the Half-Life way of doing it. Yes, you have no control over the story, but the story and the gameplay really aren't separated. In Half-Life 2 it is a little bit more than in HL1, which is disappointing. The thing is, if you look at what Valve did, it's just a bunch of little things. For example, there's the part in HL1 where the soldiers start to come into play. Other games might have had a cutscene showing soldiers arriving. Maybe some talking heads of generals giving orders and exlpaining what's happening. In HL1 you just see soldiers, and they start shooting at you. WTF! If you survive and continue you figure out what it's all about. By not showing you anything other than what Gordon Freeman hears and sees you experience the story from a pure perspective. They enhance that even more with cinematic tricks like changing the FOV and having maps carefully crafted and scripted so that events can have cinematic impact no matter what the player is doing.

The other way is the DF way. Instead of having a writer write a story, you have story emerge from the gameplay. The Sims, Civ, lots of games do this to one degree or another. You just play the game, and the act of playing is also the act of writing.

Walker

I'm going to point you to ablog post I wrote about this basic idea. To sum it up I saw a talk at GDC this year from the Cinematic Design Lead on Mass Effect 2, and he mentioned that they see the Mass Effect games as objective storytelling, while BioWare's other games are subjective. Subjective means that you are creating the character as the player (ie: Dragon Age,) but in objective the character is basically created for you (ie: Metal Gear Solid.) If that sounds confusing go read the post, I explain it a lot better there and in more detail.

I never really thought about it this way, but I suppose every game with a story falls somewhere on the scale between subjective and objective storytelling. The most objective game might be an adventure game, or some old FMV game, and the most subjective might be something like Dwarf Fortress, where everything about the "story" is molded and interpreted by the player. Things that fall in between would be Half Life, where one can impose their personality on Gordon but is still sent down a story corridor, more towards subjective would be Mass Effect, and even further along you would find Dragon Age. That's pretty neat.

Walker

Solution #1 is the Half-Life way of doing it. Yes, you have no control over the story, but the story and the gameplay really aren't separated. In Half-Life 2 it is a little bit more than in HL1, which is disappointing.

I think that happened because Half Life 2 actually had characters with multi-dimensional personalities. For Valve to seamlessly combine story and gameplay, as they did with HL1, they would have to find a way to build characters without locking you in a room while they talk your ears off. As soon HL2 assumed you had an emotional attachment to another character, the silent protagonist became way more absurd and way less immersive.

Apreche

I think that happened because Half Life 2 actually had characters with multi-dimensional personalities. For Valve to seamlessly combine story and gameplay, as they did with HL1, they would have to find a way to build characters without locking you in a room while they talk your ears off. As soon HL2 assumed you had an emotional attachment to another character, the silent protagonist became way more absurd and way less immersive.

It's mostly the locking you in a room part. They could/should have had the people do the talking while simultaneously running and gunning, just like an action movie. Instead, they only talk in between action scenes.

Pegu

Omnutia posted a youtube lecture/rant by Daniel Floyd (kirithem on youtube) in the "things of your day" thread. I watched the rest. Here is one that is relevant to this topic of games including story.

Walker

It's mostly the locking you in a room part. They could/should have had the people do the talking while simultaneously running and gunning, just like an action movie. Instead, they only talk in between action scenes.

That's where you run into the dichotomy between gameplay and cinema. To forge that connection with the characters you should be able to see their faces and body language, which isn't a problem in an action movie, where you can cut away to the characters during the action. However, if you give the player complete control over a run n' gun shooter he can't concentrate on the play of emotions across a friendly NPC's face and firing bullets into the face of enemy NPCs at the same time. Since Valve is never going to take control of the camera away from the player the only way to get them to concentrate on the former is to remove the more urgent threats, which, for a traditional FPS, means locking the player in a safe room while the beautifully choreographed scripted events take place.

Churba

Something I think is important is that your actions in the game should have some sort of meaningful impact, either upon the player or the gameworld. That was one of the very good things about bioshock, when the revelation came around - it suddenly puts every decision and action you have undertaken into a completely new light, and tries to make you question them, and also tries to make you question your future decisions.

Another example is Mass Effect, where your choices carry over from game to game, and your characters can die - not just die-ohdear-cast-pheonix-down-all-is-well-again, but deader-than-marlon-brando Aeris kinda dead and gone permanently and irrevocably - and it not only keeps within the game world of each game, with that character not appearing again within that game(or at least, on that saved character) but also carrying over into the other games in the series. Someone dies in Mass Effect, they don't show in Mass effect 2, and if someone dies in mass effect 2, they won't be showing in mass effect 3. Your relationships matter - if you chose one character over another without some serious sweet-talking which isn't necessarily available to you, they will be angry with you, and possibly even hate you enough that they won't speak to you at all - for example, If you pick the wrong path with Jack, the limit of her character interaction after that is her telling you to fuck off. It's not even just a case of "Be nice to her and that'll always work" - if you do the right thing at the wrong time, she's still going to hate you and tell you to fuck off if you try to talk to her.

However, Bioshock brings me to another point - It would be nice to have more games where the story actually means a goddamn thing. In Bioshock, about ten percent of the game was deep and thoughtful story, and the rest of it was killing you a whole shitload of splicers, with the occasional big daddy thrown in for variety. There is very little connection between the story and the vast majority of the gameplay. Count the signifigant moments of the game, vs the amount of time you're just wandering about, shooting splicers, beating on big daddies, and saving/killing little sisters for ADAM.

Not to mention that with the two endings, there is literally no difference in the game - You either play the game as normal, and get the good ending, or you play the game almost exactly the same, but if you kill so much as one little sister, you're suddenly completely evil and horrible. The difference between the good ending and the bad ending is literally nothing more than a single button press, at nearly any point in the game. It doesn't even have to be intentional - you accidentally hit the wrong button, and BLAM, suddenly, you're the antichrist, but it literally makes no difference whatsoever, other than giving you a different cutscene at the end. The only other difference is that if you intentionally harvest a bunch of little sisters, some fights become a bit easier, because you have collected more magical space dollars, which in this case is called ADAM. There is no punishment OR reward, except for a single cutscene, and it feels like they've done something worse than not making the effort, which is making a slight effort, and then just tossing it in the too-hard basket and going "Eh, good enough."

Omnutia

Walker

...making a slight effort, and then just tossing it in the too-hard basket and going "Eh, good enough." saying "Oh fuck, we don't have enough time and money."

Sail

Lecture by Anthony Burch on this very subject.

Churba

Lecture by Anthony Burch on this very subject.

I actually listened to this just today - This is also available as audio via the HAWPcast stream on itunes, it's one of the relatively recent episodes.

Sail

I agree with pretty much everything he says.

Koholint

In that talk or just in general?

Sail

In that talk or just in general?

Now that I think about it, in general. But I meant that talk.

Axel

I've always felt that the problem with the disconnect between story and gameplay in some games comes from the linearity. Sure, you can run around doing whatever missions you want in Mass Effect, but you're restrained from absolute decision in certain areas. In wide-open games like Fallout 3 or Elder Scrolls, you are completely free, able to ignore the main quest given to you and still feel a fulfilling adventure. You may never see the credits in Fallout 3 if you ignore finding your father, but that's arguably not a bad thing. In Fallout 3, who you kill and don't kill is important. Occasionally, in Mass Effect, you can avoid a confrontation through the right dialogue choices, but this is usually just the difference between getting Paragon or Renegade points. In Fallout 3, you can screw over entire missions by just shooting everyone involved in the head. When almost all NPC's have their lives in your hands, the game feels a lot more real, and you can really get into the story.

Apreche

Oh, forgot Sleep is Death.

Funfetus

You may never see the credits in Fallout 3 if you ignore finding your father, but that's arguably not a bad thing. In Fallout 3, who you kill and don't kill is important. ... In Fallout 3, you can screw over entire missions by just shooting everyone involved in the head. When almost all NPC's have their lives in your hands, the game feels a lot more real, and you can really get into the story.

The first two Fallout games were even better in this regard, which brings me to an interesting point -- I think the jump in production values, particularly the fact that RPGs are usually fully voice-acted now, discourages that kind of openness. Not only do you have to build sets for everywhere you can go (instead of putting a bunch of stock tiles together), but every branch of every dialogue tree has to be acted out, turning a job that could probably be done by a few writers into a huge, expensive undertaking. There's an incentive to not follow the possibilities down every little rat hole.

Apreche

I think the jump in production values, particularly the fact that RPGs are usually fully voice-acted now, discourages that kind of openness. Not only do you have to build sets for everywhere you can go (instead of putting a bunch of stock tiles together), but every branch of every dialogue tree has to be acted out, turning a job that could probably be done by a few writers into a huge, expensive undertaking.

It's true. The quest for higher production values imposes many negative limitations on gameplay and story. I still don't understand why game developers continue to jack up the production values of games in terms of things like graphics, voice acting, etc. when the evidence is clear that those things do not help sales all that much. Farmville, Plants vs. Zombies, The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, these don't have ultra high production values, and they absolutely crush games like Fallout 3 in terms of sales.

Kiey

Lecture by Anthony Burch on this very subject.

I find myself quoting from this talk a lot lately, whenever I write/think about game narrative. Mostly from the "suspension of agency" concept he poses, which is basically that player's are willing to give up some control and choice for a better experience. It's like the suspension of disbelief idea from movie watching (yes a giant shark that can jump out of the ocean and eat a plane at 30,000 ft isn't possible at all, but its enjoyable to watch.)

Apsup

It's true. The quest for higher production values imposes many negative limitations on gameplay and story. I still don't understand why game developers continue to jack up the production values of games in terms of things like graphics, voice acting, etc. when the evidence is clear that those things do not help sales all that much. Farmville, Plants vs. Zombies, The Sims, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, these don't have ultra high production values, and they absolutely crush games like Fallout 3 in terms of sales.

Those games are more or less in the casual side of gaming and that makes monies these days. Production values isn't the thing there, it just is so, that simple casual games don't need high production values. Simple concept + low budget production + huge amount of people who aren't "gamers", but play casual games = profit, lots of it. So why everybody doesn't make casual games? I don't know but I'm thankful that they don't.

And about story-telling in video games. At least the industry is trying, although as people here has mentioned, combining story-telling with gameplay is still lacking. There have been games where I have really liked the story, and the way it's told. Half-life 1 and 2 get points in the way how they get the player immersed in the character of Freeman, yes Half-Life 2 has little too much of the "locked in a room with plot telling machines (humans)" -stuff going on, but I got so immersed in that game that I didn't care about that and that immersion is the thing why I don't want Half-Life to ever be a movie, it would be just another sci-fi action film. Bioshock had it's good points and I really liked "the twist", too bad that rest of the game and story after that was disappointingly bad.

Also wanna share some thoughts about Shadow of the Colossus. Shadow of Colossus is great example how much game can tell with so little. Story is quite simple, the main character doesn't speak, and her (most likely) girlfriend is dead, so no details there. But even when the story is simple (or maybe because) it feels like almost everything in the game ether enhances the atmosphere of the game, develops the story or tells of about the characters. Only the number and looks of the colossi seem somewhat arbitrary. It is simply a game about simple question "How far is the main character ready to go for love?" But what I wanted to say with this is that maybe gamemakers should look back to more simpler games of the past. Don't try to make us care about ten different characters, make us care about one or two. Don't try to make huge deep plot with dozen twists and "deep-themes", take something simple but tell it in a way that is more captivating than the basic cut-scenes and talking heads.

Shortly. Gamemakers of you have hard time of fitting all of your story in gameplay, and need cut-scenes, maybe you have too much story and some cutting and editing required.

Apreche

Those games are more or less in the casual side of gaming and that makes monies these days. Production values isn't the thing there, it just is so, that simple casual games don't need high production values. Simple concept + low budget production + huge amount of people who aren't "gamers", but play casual games = profit, lots of it. So why everybody doesn't make casual games? I don't know but I'm thankful that they don't.

There are plenty of games that gamers play with relatively low production values. Smash Bros. Bionic Commando: Rearmed. Mega Man 9/10. Tecmo Bowl Throwback. Castlvanias of all sorts. Dwarf Fortress? Portal.

I don't think the demand is really there for the games that push the limits of fancy graphics and such. You just need to push it hard enough to make the game work. Portal sells way way more than say, Crysis or whatever the current video-card crusher is.

Apsup

There are plenty of games that gamers play with relatively low production values. Smash Bros. Bionic Commando: Rearmed. Mega Man 9/10. Tecmo Bowl Throwback. Castlvanias of all sorts. Dwarf Fortress? Portal.

I wonder how those do against Fallout 3 tough?

I don't think the demand is really there for the games that push the limits of fancy graphics and such. You just need to push it hard enough to make the game work. Portal sells way way more than say, Crysis or whatever the current video-card crusher is.

I don't think it's about demand, but more about marketing and something else. Good looking game is easier to sell with pictures and videos, It's easy to show a video or a picture and say "look how fancy this looks" than "look how fun to play our game is". Also I think that there is at least some demand for fancy looking games, what else could explain the console fan-boy wars that are all about "Games on our console look better because our consoles powerlevel is over 9000, your console sux!" And I think there are games where fancy graphics fit and belong.

But personally I think that graphics on games have no need to get better than this, the industry should move their focus to polish and prefect the gameplay of the games. But gamemaking is business and tell me witch one of these two ideas is more likely to get monies behind it? A) "Sequel to our long running series, It's like previous part but has new weapons, more enemies and better graphics." or "Sequel to our long running series, where we completely redesign the gameplay and really surprise the player with new deep mechanic."

2bfree

Anyone know of a good book that goes into strategy game design. Specifically, on how to balance attributes of units in such a game. (cost, power, speed, and such.)

Yes, I Googled, haven't found something yet except scattered articles on the web. Any help would be appreciated.

Rym

I would honestly recommend, rather than reading a book, spending that time playing through every US-release Advance Wars game.

muppet

I still need to get my daughter to play the one release I picked up of Advance Wars. I don't remember the name, but it's post-apocalyptic and you play head to head on two Nintendo DS units, It's pretty cool, like a streamlined Military Madness/Nectaris with better gameplay.

2bfree

I was looking for something based in math. Something like this article. http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/level-16-game-balance/ under "Balance Between Game Objects"