Adventure Gamers - Forums

Ironic, considering that the biggest criticism of Bioshock Infinite was the way in which its gameplay mechanics conflicted with the narrative.

Well, okay, the article isn’t from the Bioshock Infinite devs (that would be Irrational Games) anyway, but from the Amnesia/SOMA devs (Frictional Games).

ozzie - 03 May 2014 01:14 PM

Well, okay, the article isn’t from the Bioshock Infinite devs (that would be Irrational Games) anyway, but from the Amnesia/SOMA devs (Frictional Games).

Ah, that makes more sense.    I suppose I could have read the article before commenting, too. 

millenia - 03 May 2014 04:01 PM

interactive movies…are not bad by any means, and they definitely can tell a great story while still being considered a game.

Nope.  Terrible. 

It’s a little bit confusing isn’t it? First they define narrative as something that happens over long period in the game, then we get 5 biblical rules which have no real connection to what they’ve just defined.

thejobloshow - 29 April 2014 09:57 PM

1) The focus is on storytelling.
This is a trivial requirement, but still way too uncommon.  Basically, the main goal of the game should be for the player to experience a specific story.

Why? At least give us a reason. I think they are still talking about their idea of narrative here, but that doesn’t fit with what they say next.

2) The bulk of the gameplay time is spent playing.
We want interactive storytelling, so players should play, not read notes, watch cutscenes, etc. These things are by no means forbidden, but they should not make up the bulk of the experience.

Disagree. There’s a massive difference between reading in the two contexts of reading a book, and reading notes to help discover the solution to a puzzle. The second’s context alone makes it interactive. You don’t have to be doing stuff with your hands all the time, like some Attention-Deficit Disorder kid.

3) The interactions make narrative sense.
This means actions that:

  Move the story forward.
  Help the player understand their role.
  Are coherent with the narrative.
  Are not just there as padding.

Can’t disagree here, although you’ve already defined narrative as what happens over the course of a game, so even a 5 hour game of Pac-Man has narrative without padding.

4) There’s no repetition.
Repetition leads to us noticing patterns, and noticing patterns in a game system is not far away from wanting to optimize them. And once you start thinking of the game in terms of “choices that give me the best systemic outcome”, it takes a lot of focus away from the game’s narrative aspects.

Why? You’ve just told us a narrative is “what happens”, so all should be fair game.

5) There are no major progression blocks.
There is no inherent problem with challenge, but if the goal here is to tell a story, then the player should not spend days pondering a puzzle or trying to overcome a skill-based challenge. Just as with repetition this takes the focus away from the narrative.

This one is just ridiculous. The article is really just about developer wanting to control the story like in a book or movie. In a game spending days pondering a puzzle can be PART of the story, and enhance it. These guys are simply making the same old error of viewing a game as “story + other stuff” rather than a whole experience. Going into development with such a limited mindset you’re always going to get a limited game, and Amnesia 2 showed that. People who want to be movie directors should go make a movie: leave the games to those who understand what makes them enjoyable.

There’s no accounting for taste! 

It’s ALL about taste. I want to try something. Let’s replace the words “narrative”, “story” or “storytelling” with “puzzle” and see how it reads.

 
  1) The focus is on puzzles.
  This is a trivial requirement, but still way too uncommon.  Basically, the main goal of the game should be for the player to experience puzzles.

  2) The bulk of the gameplay time is spent playing.
  We want interactive puzzles, so players should play, not read notes, watch cutscenes, etc. These things are by no means forbidden, but they should not make up the bulk of the experience.

  3) The interactions make puzzle sense.
  This means actions that:

    Move the puzzles forward.
    Help the player understand their role.
    Are coherent with the puzzles.
    Are not just there as padding.

  4) There’s no repetition.
  Repetition leads to us noticing patterns, and noticing patterns in a game system is not far away from wanting to optimize them. And once you start thinking of the game in terms of “choices that give me the best systemic outcome”, it takes a lot of focus away from the game’s puzzles.

  5) There are no major progression blocks.
  There is no inherent problem with challenge, but if the goal here is to tell a story, then the player should not spend days pondering a puzzle or trying to overcome a skill-based challenge. Just as with repetition this takes the focus away from the puzzles.

See? It works, pretty much. They have no real reason for valuing story above anything else, except that they like it that way. Hell, I could have put “elephants” in there and it would be no less coherent.

Didn’t we all learn from Ron Gilbert’s “What Adventure Games Should Be” rant all those years ago that they shouldn’t be anything except what the developers and fans want them to be?

6) Follow the rules if you are indie and has balls to experiment BUT If you are AAA and not backed by solid Publisher to give you another chance then you can go down the shitter like Irrational.

7) Hire better visual designers to tell your story else the bland and repeated textures
will haunt you more than actual story.

Glad Soma looks like improvement at number 7.

Hello All.

I have just joined the forum, so hope you don’t mind me poking my nose in.

I thought this article was great. I really agree with the point about coherency “The gameplay must fit with the game’s world, mood and characters”

Currently i am trying to make a game which is very story led. I come from a background in animation where I am used to being able to control everything in a scene in order to create a mood/ tell a joke. Suddenly I have to consider that the player may not want to do what I expect them to. It’s been quite a steep learning curve!

My aim is to create a game where the story and gameplay become one and that everything “sits” in the world. The player should be able to unravel the story themselves rather than have the story dictated to them. I think Machinarium does this brilliantly.

Anyway, I just wanted to say hello and that I’m finding all your points really interesting.