Does Gameplay Have To Be Sacrificed For A Good Story and vice versa?

[rmoxon]

So It's been out a while, but I personaly only just got round to playing Bioshock a few weeks ago. A title that got rave reviews and was up for many awards and what not, basicaly i was expecting it to be a bit good. And sure, from a technical standpoint its pretty magnificent, the art design is exquisite and the atmosphere perhapse unrivaled. But there was one thing, one part of the "game" that hasnt grabbed me despite the fact that I have now played it for a week, and thats the gameplay. Hear is a gave that seems to have had immense ammount of work put into every asspect of it, besides the way it actualy plays, its simple, completely lacks any challenge thanks to the fact that it just keeps respawning you over and over again until everything is dead and the gameplay is basicaly uninspired and lacks depth IMO.

Now my question is why is this the case? Bioshock surley could have had both a good story and good gameplay, yet the developer didnt seem that intresting in making a game, but more of an interactive experience.

This got me thinking about recent games with the best stories, and very few of them are truley great "games". The Metal Gear Solid series is never going to win awards for gamplay, as the awkward control mechanics would have been condemmed if the rest of the games that they were part of had not been polished to near perfection. While if you look at the reverse of this, Resident Evil 4 actualy became the best in its series when the gameplay was focused on and the story took a back seat.

In short, its incredabley frustrating to see a game with the potential of Bioshock squandered becuase the developer simpley didnt put as much effort into the gameplay as it did the rest of the story, while Gears Of War still ranks as my favorite next gen "experience" so far, and it makes me wonder if the fact that games are becoming more like films every day is really a good thing.

[EvilBoris]

I think that there is room for games that focus on both incredible gameplay and incredible stories.
I often find that games with very strong stories are one shot experiences, mainly because they end up becoming very linear due to the next goal being to see the next part of the story. That could well be the problem with these story driven games, as no matter how many side quests you are sent on the ultimate goal is to see the game finish.
GTA4 was qutie overwhelming for me, I think that I would of enjoyed the game more if I hadn't felt that I was limited to the gameplay mechanics I could use, because I hadn't progressed with the story.

[fallenangle]

I have to admit to enjoying games with a strong storyline even when the gameplay has taken a back seat (Dreamfall comes to mind). But in games where a plot is actually necessary the ideal for me is an integrated story that drives the game forward by providing motivation for the gameplay. Deus Ex, XIII, Soul Reaver, Splinter Cell are just a few good examples I can think of off the top of my head.

But it is the gameplay that has to be key, it's the thing that separates games from films. A good story should involve you and provides the reason why your character wants to get, say, from A to B but the gameplay is always the real meat in sandwich. How interesting it makes that getting from A to B is what defines a good game.

[ezee ryder]

Bioshock surley could have had both a good story and good gameplay, yet the developer didnt seem that intresting in making a game, but more of an interactive experience.

Isn't that what a game is essentially? An interactive experience.

Personally, I thought Bioshock mixed both pretty well but was a slight let down storywise towards the end. Another example of a good gameplay and story is the Metal Gear Solid series, slightly more story than gameplay some would say but still a good combination nonetheless.

[Magnakai]

...its simple, completely lacks any challenge thanks to the fact that it just keeps respawning you over and over again until everything is dead and the gameplay is basicaly uninspired and lacks depth IMO.

What? Did you play the same game as everyone else? Bioshock mixed a really wide array of gameplay possibilities in a really fluid way. You could approach most situations in radically different ways. Sure, you could just respawn and blast your way through stuff, but you could also make smart use of plasmids and the environment, set up traps for the Big Daddys, have a small troop of drones do your handywork for you etc etc etc. Uninspired and lacking depth?

If anything, I thought that the story (at least, the surface story) was seriously weak and was compromised for the sake of the gameplay, which is the way I'd personally prefer it.

For sake of comparison, I thought Call Of Duty 4 balanced the two pretty well.

[Eight Rooks]

No. End of topic.

99% of the writing in videogames is ****, or as near as damn it, and the people thought of as the saviours of the medium - Spector, Molyneux, Wright et al - either have no interest in using games to tell stories or don't have a clue how to write a genuinely good one. Some games come close, a precious, precious few come close, but most don't even bother.

That said, despite what some people say, there's 1) absolutely no reason why we can't have a far better marriage of gameplay and story, and 2) many of the games people rip it out of for sticking too closely to one or the other aren't quite as bad as they're made out to be. Metal Gear Solid 4 and Bioshock are certainly wildly over-rated and markedly flawed, but they do both offer both some fantastic narrative elements (yes, bits of MGS' story are great, despite Kojima being a terrible, terrible writer) and plenty of scope for pure gameplay experimentation.

(I wrote my university dissertation on this kind of thing, so I tend to get a little worked up about it. )

[rmoxon]

What? Did you play the same game as everyone else? Bioshock mixed a really wide array of gameplay possibilities in a really fluid way. You could approach most situations in radically different ways. Sure, you could just respawn and blast your way through stuff, but you could also make smart use of plasmids and the environment, set up traps for the Big Daddys, have a small troop of drones do your handywork for you etc etc etc. Uninspired and lacking depth?

If anything, I thought that the story (at least, the surface story) was seriously weak and was compromised for the sake of the gameplay, which is the way I'd personally prefer it.

For sake of comparison, I thought Call Of Duty 4 balanced the two pretty well.

To be fair I havent quite reached the end of Bioshock yet, but I dont think i'm that far off and the gameplay has yet to really get good.

The main reason would be that you can basicaly go through the entire game killing everything bar the big daddies by simply using the electro plasmid/wrench combo. Then of course, as ive already stated, due to the rediculous respawning issue there is no challenge to the game what so ever anyway. I am actualy a massive FPS fan, but Bioshock did almost nothing for me, and when taken as anything other than a FPS did even less.

The gameplay of Bioshock is basicaly loads of mechanics thrown together in a lazy way that all bring about the same result. And thats not Good IMO.

COD4 was awesome I thought, but again, the story was virtualy non existant IMO.

[teddymeow]

The whole respawning from the Vita-chambers never bothered me during Bioshock. I thought that, as a checkpoint system, it was on a par with other FPS games like Halo but was cleverly tied into the atmosphere and story of Rapture and what Andrew Ryan had achieved / set out to prove. It also, hopefully, means that more people will finish the game due to only ever being a short distance from where you fell and not getting pissed off that you have to redo hours of game again.

I thought the gameplay was excellent too. Just the way you could approach individual scenarios and were encouraged to experiment. Hence the reason I finished it - it was excellent!!

If all you're going to do is, as you say, run around and use the Electro / Wrench combo then you're missing a massive slice of what the game has to offer.

[Guts]

The whole respawning from the Vita-chambers never bothered me during Bioshock. I thought that, as a checkpoint system, it was on a par with other FPS games like Halo but was cleverly tied into the atmosphere and story of Rapture and what Andrew Ryan had achieved / set out to prove. It also, hopefully, means that more people will finish the game due to only ever being a short distance from where you fell and not getting pissed off that you have to redo hours of game again.

I thought the gameplay was excellent too. Just the way you could approach individual scenarios and were encouraged to experiment. Hence the reason I finished it - it was excellent!!

If all you're going to do is, as you say, run around and use the Electro / Wrench combo then you're missing a massive slice of what the game has to offer.

When you respawned from a chamber the enemies kept the damage you had inflicted on them, you lost those bullets you shot etc., correct? That means it is not a checkpoint like Halo where the game takes you back to the last checkpoint when you die and you play the next part all over again, it just continues the game like nothing happened until you kill the enemies. Where's the feeling of danger, fear and pressure in desing like that? In a survival horror FPS out of all things? You could just run and shoot a couple of hits, die, respawn and do it again and again until you win unlike in games like Halo or Gears where you might want to try different ways to win a particular fight if you die and reload from a checkpoint.

About the wrench and electric shock. It's bad balancing on the designers part if you can beat the majority of the game with the first weapon/power, there's no defending it, many games have similar problems with weapon balance. It is not the players job to deliberately hinder his own progress by NOT using the weapons and powers the designers have given him.

[Ady]

Welcome to the future of gaming, mate.

In theory, there's no reason story and gameplay can't be mixed well, but increasingly you can't help but think games nowadays are more focused on stories than actual gameplay, owing to gaming's obsession with cinema. As a result, gameplay is stripped down to allow the story to dominate, and seeing the story through becomes the whole point of the game.

It's not uncommon to see game reviews expend a good 3/4 of their text explaining the game's plot before mentioning anything about mechanics, even if the game itself isn't even plot driven. THere's nothing wrong with a decent story, of course but personally I'm far more interested solid gameplay. The following quotes come from other coners of the 'net and show the attitudes of gamers nowadays when it comes to stories and gameplay. Depressing stuff:

Gameplay is nice and all but it’s the art design and the story which keep sticking in my mind long after I finished the game."

"Story is incredibly important to me in a game. A great story is what I remember retrospectively, not the gameplay... the story will be what I remember."

"I’ve continued playing through some pretty crappy games just to get more of the amazing story hidden within... conversely, I’ve stopped playing other pretty crappy games because they sucked and had no story to keep me coming back."

"Story encourages progression... without stories, we’d just be back in the old 80’s arcade days (which i dont think any sane gamer would want in this day and age)"

"Without story we would just have mini games, puzzle games, and a few platformers."

So this is where gaming is headed; press the 'WIN' button and watch some nice FMV. Oh, and don't forget to go online and gush about the "experience" afterwards.

[Dazzyman]

You play the game how you want it gives you an option really as if you dont want to die and respawn at the chambers then dont use em reload thats how I always played it. You do reliase theirs the hardcore mode to deactivates the vita chambers dont you when they did the big patch? If I remember right PC got it for free and 360 the hardcore mode to disable em was in the download content. 360 theirs even an achievment for not using em. I guess for me I do this alot in games I reload instead of respawning. I always felt the vita respawn was for easy level games thats why when I hit death I reloaded.

I personally liked it but still couldnt get immersed by it I just felt their was something missing with the fighting. I must go back to it at some point and retry it as part of it was being tired I think at the time.

Edit the patch fixes are here and DLC

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2007/12/australia_bioshock_pc_patch_36_1.html

[jamesy]

Personally I think a lot of the time gameplay is sacrificed for story. It's not always the case though. One of my favourite games is snatcher and tbh there's very little gameplay in that worth talking about.
Another example would be final fantasy VII which I'm currently playing through atm for the first time. I'm not really sure walking about towns talking to characters is top-notch gameplay. It's not boring though because of the story.
I can't imagine any shmups havin a decent story and if in between levels there was five minute cutscenes it would completely ruin them for me.(unless you could skip them :P)
On the other hand I think the metal gear solid games have a good mixture of gameplay and story. Fair enough we can complain about overly-long cutscenes but they added a lot to the games which otherwise could be viewed as quite clunky experiences, at least 1, 2 and 3. In saying that I have been through MGS4 three times now skipping cut-scenes and the gameplay holds up well without the story elements.

[Stormtec]

Welcome to the future of gaming, mate.

In theory, there's no reason story and gameplay can't be mixed well, but increasingly you can't help but think games nowadays are more focused on stories than actual gameplay, owing to gaming's obsession with cinema. As a result, gameplay is stripped down to allow the story to dominate, and seeing the story through becomes the whole point of the game.

It's not uncommon to see game reviews expend a good 3/4 of their text explaining the game's plot before mentioning anything about mechanics, even if the game itself isn't even plot driven. THere's nothing wrong with a decent story, of course but personally I'm far more interested solid gameplay. The following quotes come from other coners of the 'net and show the attitudes of gamers nowadays when it comes to stories and gameplay. Depressing stuff:

Gameplay is nice and all but it?s the art design and the story which keep sticking in my mind long after I finished the game."

"Story is incredibly important to me in a game. A great story is what I remember retrospectively, not the gameplay... the story will be what I remember."

"I?ve continued playing through some pretty crappy games just to get more of the amazing story hidden within... conversely, I?ve stopped playing other pretty crappy games because they sucked and had no story to keep me coming back."

"Story encourages progression... without stories, we?d just be back in the old 80?s arcade days (which i dont think any sane gamer would want in this day and age)"

"Without story we would just have mini games, puzzle games, and a few platformers."

So this is where gaming is headed; press the 'WIN' button and watch some nice FMV. Oh, and don't forget to go online and gush about the "experience" afterwards.

You see, my problem with that there is that they're quotes from corners of the internet that you've clearly picked out to help prove your point. I find it hard to believe that the selection of quotes there reflect the entire gaming community as a whole, as it is evidenced in this very thread by people who are claiming to have preference to the contrary =P

On a more generally on-topic note:

I believe it's entirely possible to have a better integration of narrative with gameplay. Valve do this in their own games quite often, and if you ever play through the dev commentaries you'll find out how they do it. Their way is basically to show the player what is going on, as opposed to telling them via cut scenes. Bioshock does that as well, to to a degree. For example, as soon as you step out of the bathysphere and take your first couple of steps into Rapture, you see the discarded protest boards and banners - signs of the civil unrest which occurred there. Half-Life 2 and Bioshock are filled with moments where you come across a particular place and it makes you think (or me, at least) "hm, kinda looks like this-and-this happened here", and I think that's a pretty good way of combining storytelling with the game itself.

It'd be a shame if the only way for us to combine the two would be to make games like Fahrenheit XD

[Ady]

You see, my problem with that there is that they're quotes from corners of the internet that you've clearly picked out to help prove your point. I find it hard to believe that the selection of quotes there reflect the entire gaming community as a whole, as it is evidenced in this very thread by people who are claiming to have preference to the contrary =P

Uh.. I never claimed those quotes represented the thoughts of the ENTIRE gaming community, but what they do show is that a strong preference for stories over gameplay does exist amongst some gamers, something that's clearly reflected in some of the games we play. This very thread is proof of that.

And of course those quotes prove my point. Apropos of the topic at hand, why would I select quotes that didn't back up my point?

[Tig]

thread isn't done until somebody links this.

I'm not sure if I agree with that guy, but it's certainly the most interesting thing I've read on the "story vs game" debate.

Basically he agrees with the thread title: videogames are not an inherently storytelling medium (like film and literature), and so attempts to tell stories within games will always be doomed to compromise.

To the degree that you make a game more like a story--a controlled, pre-determined experience, with events occurring as the author wishes--you make it a less effective game. To the degree that you make a story more like a game--with alternative paths and outcomes--you make it a less effective story.

It's not merely that games aren't stories, and vice versa; rather, they are, in a sense, opposites.

interesting stuff