How do you quantify what constitutes a gameplay or narrative focus in a game?

[FarticusMaximus]

We frequently read about how gamers have preferences on the balance between core gameplay mechanics and presentation or narrative in their games.

How would we go about defining an objective narrative-gameplay scale? Is that even possible, or is it an entirely subjective measurement?

If such a scale were devised and it's metrics applied across the games industry, how would developers, publishers and marketing teams react? Would they care, or would it lead to an even more focus group led industry?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise?

 

[DrJay24]

You don't have to balance them, they are fully independent. I can take Gear of War and add three hours of narrative and the mechanics are unchanged.

 

[L. Scofield]

Uber linear games with cutscenes and QTEs every minute. That's what a extreme narrative driven game looks like.

Now pick any Mario game. That's a gameplay focused game.

 

[ArcticCircle]

You don't have to balance them, they are fully independent. I can take Gear of War and add three hours of narrative and the mechanics are unchanged.

Yeah, there's no need to balance 'em. Actually I'd suggest that more narrative focused developers should just rip off whatever game mechanic works the best in "pure" genre. For example Obsidian was foolish and tried to reinvent the combat / shooting mechanics in Alpha Protocol, when it would have been much better just to rip off Splinter Cell or Call of Duty Modern Warfare (depending on what your end goal is). This way if someone ain't interested about story at all, at least they have solid game mechanics. From pure narrative side we have visual novels and choose your own adventures text games... eh, why not. If next Call of Duty really wants to put those mechanics into game...

 

[FarticusMaximus]

You don't have to balance them, they are fully independent.

They are to a certain extent dependant on each other and the budget of the game in question.

For example, you might blow your budget on mocap and be forced to crunch out some rudimentary gameplay before you hit the publishers deadline or you run out of cash.

I can take Gear of War and add three hours of narrative and the mechanics are unchanged.

True, but doing so would move the game on the hypothetical scale away from gameplay-focussed toward narrative-focussed.

Doing so could lose the game some of it's audience, or gain some.

 

[L. Scofield]

A big problem is with developers trying to make the gameplay and the cutscenes too congruent. -If they have a serious tone the gameplay suffers by restriction. Think of how the MGS games treat the cutscenes and gameplay completely independently. You can do all sorts of wacky things during gameplay that would never occur in a cutscene. An example of a middle-ground would be Saints Row The Third. That's wacky in both gameplay and cutscenes.

 

[DrJay24]

So you are not talking about balancing core mechanics against narrative, but more about gameplay to non-gameplay ratio?

Developer make the game they want, it is an art. If they hit the right balance (more about pacing IMO) then they sell more copies. If they are off, they likely lose more sales than they gain. Most games have poor stories and poor story telling and the core group of gamers that buy games demand more game and less story (males 18-30). Its all about the demographic IMO. I'm playing Dying Light now, the story is awful and I could care less. The other extreme is something like Walking Dead from Telltale, which is mostly story telling.

Games like the Uncharted series and TLoU are a rare blend and the pinnacle of balance. Its no accident they are both from the same company, it is rare in the industry to be good at both.

 

[orangpelupa]

im confused with something like CoD BLOPS II where the story will change depending your gameplay choice (headshot the hostage, shot hostage leg, shot hostage arm, or something...) but the story itself is not prominent.

or games like Destiny where it so focused on delivering gameplay with a story but the story never going anywhere and the gameplay never have any effect with story.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm playing Dying Light now, the story is awful and I could care less. The other extreme is something like Walking Dead from Telltale, which is mostly story telling.

These are two interesting examples. Dying Light's main campaign is, based on my limited progression in it and every review I've read, inferior to the majority of the side quests which are not mind blowing but certainly more interesting and sometimes even thought provoking.

But it's a game where the story is virtually redundant - the fun is getting about and avoiding or bashing zombies

I bought into the The Walking Dead on the premise (and promise) that decisions would really impact story progression which meant I could replay it and see how things pan out if I took different choices but the truth is the decisions are superficial at best - where two people's lives in the balance, whomever you pick the other person will die fairly soon afterwards anyway. But it was certainly a good tablet game, I played and enjoyed it on the iPad, it was only the second play through I realised the Molyneux-like claim about branching storylines was grossly exaggerated.

Conversely it's a game which is about story and the little interspersed elements of interactivity are almost redundant.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

A very good example would be Mass Effect, particularly the second game. Very tight gameplay mechanics IMHO (well, except maybe the mining stuff) and a super strong story with great characters and nice pacing. I think the way the game calculated the ending (basically the casualties from your team) was very well done too, rewarding not just a methodical approach but also your knowledge of the team members (assigning the right characters for each job). You could've gotten away with saving everyone or you could've got everyone killed including Shepard...

Other games I'd list for having a good balance would be System Shock 2, Deus Ex and probably Ultima VII part 2: The Serpent Isle. Except for SI, they had some very complex game mechanics and lots of emergent gameplay, and yet they were massively story driven and also offered player choices with more or less significant results; even though those weren't really about the story but about how you were able to approach the various gameplay challenges.
SI on the other hand was actually very linear, both in the story and the gameplay (maxing out the Avatar was a one-way street) - but the narrative was just super strong and the game was actually quite hard. I mean they went there and hid a key in an INVISIBLE chest at one point Also, Ultima VII: The Black Gate was different in that the story was driven by the locations and after leaving the first town you were allowed to visit the rest of Britannia in any order; and the plot was driven by detective work, uncovering clues and so on. And both games had an open world that I believe is still unique - NPCs with schedules and the ability to bake bread from crops you've harvested... I haven't played any Elder Scrolls games since the first one (which I've quit in the first randomized dungeon...) but I don't think those were as complex as Origin's twin masterpieces.
I could also add the two Ultima Underworld games here, but I think that maybe the narratives weren't as strong in those. I've still spent a LOT of time with them all those years ago and enjoyed the hell out of it

Thinking about it a bit more, I'd also add Outcast - the game reminded me a LOT of the Ultimas at its time, with the action and exploration and puzzles/quests and conversation aspects all covered, although in a TPS implementation and without the character stats progression.

So my point is that it should be completely possible to create video games that have them both, complex gameplay and strong narrative. The problem seems to be that the expected complexity of the various systems is just far too high and corners have to be cut here and there. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the games with large enough budgets to implement all this stuff at today's quality levels have to be far more simple to sell enough copies; for example, I think an Ultima VII type game should be quite possible on the GTA engine - but adding conversations and puzzles and such would just alienate most of the customers...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If such a scale were devised and it's metrics applied across the games industry, how would developers, publishers and marketing teams react? Would they care, or would it lead to an even more focus group led industry?

Different people have different tastes. You could produce an action<>strategy scale, and a simple<>complex scale, and a cute<>realistic. Then you could dissect stats and find, after lots of investigation, that people buy games. All sorts of games. So it doesn't really matter what you go for.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Oh man, the marketing presentations I've seen, if only I could talk about them...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Oh man, the marketing presentations I've seen, if only I could talk about them...

I see your marketing presentation horror story and raise you marketing presentations for long range missiles horror stories.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Haven't seen any of those, sounds interesting

 

[Sonic]

GTAV is a good example of a game with nice balance between the two. I can do whatever I want gameplay wise and mess around and advance the story to my own leisure. And the story progresses nicely with fun and varied missions. The cut scenes are done in engine and are skipable, which is nice, and are enjoyable to watch. To me the game is in a league of its own when it comes to gameplay and overall presentation. I enjoyed the story thoroughly as well but that might be because I was enthralled with the entire game itself.

Skyrim is another example of an open world game that allows one to advance the story at their own pace. I guess it is inherent in the design of the game but I really feel as if Skyim hits the nail on the head in regards to this topic. Really fun game with an enjoyable lore and awesome gameplay and a nice story. Lots of content and loads of fun gameplay.

Totally agree about Uncharted and TLoU.

As I get older the one constant remains. Gameplay is king. The importance of the story has started to play a larger role as well. I enjoy a decent story and narrative, but I absolutely will not play a game that is barren in the gameplay department no matter how good the story is. The purpose of the game is for me to play it, not watch it. I'd much prefer a fun, engaging game with a lacking or barely any story over a visual novel that commands to push button x or button y only to proceed. QTE's are ok in certain instances but that's a crap excuse for gameplay and devs should be called out for it if they use a preponderance of it in their games.

In terms of an actual scale. It seems it would be hard to even get a forum wide consensus on that just like it is on reviews. If a majority agrees on a specific or a few games that show a perfect or near perfect balance then we could use those titles as benchmarks in comparison to others. But I do like the idea.

 

[Prophecy2k]

OP thanks for making this thread. It's a good question and you've phrased your OP in a way as to nicely generate some meaty discussion. Good job ;-)

I personally don't think a scale of whether a game is more narrative or gameplay focussed matters all that much. But that's just because I'm the kind of gamer that can enjoy all different kinds of games, from games with little to no story (or utterly shit story) and great gameplay, to titles with run-of-the-mill "genre standard" gameplay and an interesting narrative, to games that nail both. But I also respect that not all gamers are like me.

I think there are different genres of game, and arcoss those different genres it can be easier or harder to do story telling and gameplay both really well. For some genres, even the concept of trying to shoehorn in a narrative would make the game an abberration that most genre fans would detest, e.g. racing games. For others, not having a good narrative would instantly see the game dismissed as useless tripe, e.g. RPGs. So I think it does very much depend on the kind of game.

I just don't think a focus on narrative vs gameplay for games is a useful thing to emphasise, because as has been said in the thread before, games CAN and very much HAVE demonstrated that the two are not mutually exclusive and you can do both and do both really well.

All games should aim for tight and solid gameplay with some innovation where possible, and a great story. With the only exception where due to the genre it doesn't make sense.

Spoiler

However even then I think there should be room in the industry for someone to have a go I would definintely play a racing game with a great story in it's career mode.

 

[iroboto]

My definition is a little basic, but I like to define narrative games that make you play through or sit through specific story elements, remove/force players to do things for the purpose of advancing story/creating an emotional connection to the characters. The more control that is removed from the player the more I push the game category into narrative based game.

My examples of narratives are:
a) Dipping your head for holy water, and spoiler what you must do at the end - Bioshock
b) Paying your respects - Call of Duty, any slow down QTE combat scene, watching your arm get hammered near the end, losing your arm in the helicopter...
c) QTE cutscenes when I first saw Shenmue, I guess you can call them interactive cutscenes
d) The ending for Mass effect 3
e) A lot of walking with a lantern - Order 1886, moving back while shooting the lycan
f) Cutting off the arm/leg of one of your squadmates BF4
g) Wolfenstien choosing which of your squadmates loses an eye, generally just walking around your hideout.
h) TR Reboot - a lot of scenes.

I generally associate it with an attempt/focus to make me have emotional connection to the story or characters. There's varying levels of how far games will go to achieve this. I like narrative games a lot, it's why I've been such a big Bioware fan, but I will seldom play through them more than once, ME2 and ME1 were exceptions, as I do get bored going through the story elements/QTEs/cutscenes that I already know (because I failed to QTE correctly, or my second playthrough), but I don't mind sitting through ones that I don't know.

 

[Billy Idol]

Everything interactive, i.e. needing user input, is imo gameplay.

 

[Cyan]

Uber linear games with cutscenes and QTEs every minute. That's what a extreme narrative driven game looks like.

Now pick any Mario game. That's a gameplay focused game.

Once upon a time, narrative seemed more important than gameplay when CDs used QTE scenes everywhere but, in my opinion, there is a divide between people who want to play with only a gameplay & the ones who enjoy the cutscenes in-between movies. Integrating both is tough, but not impossible.

At least gameplay focused games have no plot holes. :smile2: