Games with under-utilised gimmicks

[Center]

Most of the moral choices in games seem to go this direction for me. It makes sense, writing for thousands of different combinations of choices would be moderately difficult, but something about playing a game where choices are supposed to matter and they have little to no impact is extremely dispiriting. The chance to really impact a story is interesting, and then I am confronted with the importance attached to any decisions I am allowed to make.

VATS (Fallout 3) had a lot of potential that wasn't fully explored, in my mind.

The running/climbing in assassins creed as well. It was tremendous fun just doing it when I started, but then it started to feel constrained, because when so many things I could do, some of the things I couldn't seemed very silly. Kinda like in games where you cant jump and a tiny little bump becomes an impassable barrier.

 

[Menigal]

Most of the moral choices in games seem to go this direction for me. It makes sense, writing for thousands of different combinations of choices would be moderately difficult, but something about playing a game where choices are supposed to matter and they have little to no impact is extremely dispiriting. The chance to really impact a story is interesting, and then I am confronted with the importance attached to any decisions I am allowed to make.

I think the worst example of fake choice is the trial in NWN2, where no matter whether you win or lose, you still have to undergo a trial by combat. It's not a short stretch of gameplay, either. I'm half-convinced that the whole game is a sort of stealth parody of that sort of RPG (maybe in a sort of protest against the publisher or something?) and that this was deliberate, but that still doesn't make it any less frustrating.

 

[DArtagnan]

Most of the moral choices in games seem to go this direction for me. It makes sense, writing for thousands of different combinations of choices would be moderately difficult, but something about playing a game where choices are supposed to matter and they have little to no impact is extremely dispiriting. The chance to really impact a story is interesting, and then I am confronted with the importance attached to any decisions I am allowed to make

Good example, and I have to mention Bioshock as a game with a really stupid example of "moral choice".

The game pretends to challenge our perceptions and it makes a huge deal out of these little sisters, that you have to either save or kill.

The idea was supposed to be that, by saving them, you wouldn't be able to harvest them - so you were left with less "Adam". But the game chickened out - and offered the player extra goodies if you helped them, which watered down the choice.

Also, while I won't spoil the ending - suffice to say that you'll get the "good" ending, even if you harvested a number of girls - and failed to save them during a critical mission.

But the worst part, for me, was the setup of a choice between murdering innocent girls for personal benefit or saving them. That's the opposite of an interesting moral dilemma - as only pure psychopaths would want to kill little girls for a few extra resources, especially in a game where you have to struggle to die

Essentially, for a game that was meant to provoke your standards, it really messed up on delivery, imo.

 

[txa1265]

Good example, and I have to mention Bioshock as a game with a really stupid example of "moral choice".

I agree, but would also reinforce that (1) some of your observations are based on hindsight and (2) much of this is due to balancing issues (i.e. game is easy, making it a non-choice).

As I just replayed on the iPad, I would definitely say it has an impact on replayability, because when you have a choice that seems to matter but really doesn't, it messes with how you perceive the game as you play. But that is the thing about replaying anything - those singular (e.g. Reven) moments completely change once you realize they are there.

 

[DArtagnan]

I agree, but would also reinforce that (1) some of your observations are based on hindsight and (2) much of this is due to balancing issues (i.e. game is easy, making it a non-choice).

As I just replayed on the iPad, I would definitely say it has an impact on replayability, because when you have a choice that seems to matter but really doesn't, it messes with how you perceive the game as you play. But that is the thing about replaying anything - those singular (e.g. Reven) moments completely change once you realize they are there.

Please note that my main issue is with the setup - and I had that response to the game the very first time I had to make this "tough" choice. I thought it was soooo heavy-handed and "gamey", like a babystep towards an actual moral dilemma.

Also, as soon as I found out that, by saving the girl, I actually got unique powers and some extra Adam, which happens very early in the game - I laughed at the trivial stupidity of the "moral" choice.

So, not really a hindsight thing.

It obviously affected a lot of people though - and that's fair enough. We all respond differently for different reasons.

I thought using innocent little girls with huge sad eyes was ridiculously over-the-top, but it worked - and the game got stellar reviews, despite having what I consider to be middling shooter gameplay.

So, they did something right.

Personally, I thought the game had an extremely powerful premise with such a compelling narrative and promise of depth - coupled with superb atmosphere. But the story broke down completely around half-way through, and every part of the actual gameplay was inferior to System Shock 2.

But that's just me

 

[Menigal]

Personally, I thought the game had an extremely powerful premise with such a compelling narrative and promise of depth - coupled with superb atmosphere. But the story broke down completely around half-way through, and every part of the actual gameplay was inferior to System Shock 2.

But that's just me

I think quite a few people feel that way. When it came out, the game suffered a bit from pretentious movie guy syndrome. You know what I mean, when critics and artsy types rave about a film, but when you finally see it you walk away saying "meh, it was alright, I suppose."

I think moral choices have been so badly done in games for so long now that it instantly turns me off when I see that listed as a game's selling point. What I really don't get is when you see examples like New Vegas, with people claiming that Caesar's Legion (slavery, sexism, "peace" through brutal repression) and the NCR (high ideals tempered with routine government corruption, imperialistic) present equally good options and "grey on grey" morality. It definitely makes me hope those people never get into any position of authority.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think quite a few people feel that way. When it came out, the game suffered a bit from pretentious movie guy syndrome. You know what I mean, when critics and artsy types rave about a film, but when you finally see it you walk away saying "meh, it was alright, I suppose."

I think moral choices have been so badly done in games for so long now that it instantly turns me off when I see that listed as a game's selling point. What I really don't get is when you see examples like New Vegas, with people claiming that Caesar's Legion (slavery, sexism, "peace" through brutal repression) and the NCR (high ideals tempered with routine government corruption, imperialistic) present equally good options and "grey on grey" morality. It definitely makes me hope those people never get into any position of authority.

Hehe, yeah, I agree with you.

Obsidian writing gets a lot of praise, and I really can't see it. It has such a forced "maturity" that it ends up having the opposite effect on me. I feel like the writers are writing for effect rather than to serve the story, if you know what I mean.

But, then again, I'm sort of picky about writing

 

[Menigal]

But, then again, I'm sort of picky about writing

Same here, and game writing is currently mired at about the self-published ebook level. Or should I say vanity project B-movie level, since it's got to be cinematic. Sadly, I can't see that changing any time soon.

 

[DArtagnan]

Same here, and game writing is currently mired at about the self-published ebook level. Or should I say vanity project B-movie level, since it's got to be cinematic. Sadly, I can't see that changing any time soon.

Well, I do see the occasional example of better writing - but that's obviously subjective.

Ironically, I consider Bioshock Infinite to have a fantastic, engaging and wholesome narrative that works from A to Z, and it's written by the same guy who did Bioshock. But Levine made it clear that the original Bioshock story was written long after the game was designed - and it was done rather quickly. Infinite was obviously a more cared for story.

Last of Us was really strong as well, at least to me.

Both are cinematic in ways that actually work, but I'd say they're only slightly above average as games.

If only we could have similarly powerful stuff (if a bit more subtle) working in meaty and satisfying RPGs - then that'd be something

The Witcher 2 was very good in this way and I have high hopes for the upcoming sequel. I guess we'll see.

Thankfully, I'm used to crappy writing in games - and it's rarely the reason I keep playing.

 

[txa1265]

But of course looking for really good writing in a game is like looking for good gaming on a phone or tablet ... at best you will get an inferior version done better elsewhere.

Just like computer>>tablet>phone for gaming (and most complex apps), so too does book>>movie>game for writing and narrative. It is just the way of things ... and we trade that reality to be part of the experience. Oh, and shoot stuff or blast it with a fireball.

 

[DArtagnan]

But of course looking for really good writing in a game is like looking for good gaming on a phone or tablet … at best you will get an inferior version done better elsewhere.

Just like computer>>tablet>phone for gaming (and most complex apps), so too does book>>movie>game for writing and narrative. It is just the way of things … and we trade that reality to be part of the experience. Oh, and shoot stuff or blast it with a fireball.

I don't agree with that position, and I don't think saying "that's just how it is" is the way to make changes.

Since SOME games manage to tell a great story - and have good writing, it's obviously possible.

The more we expect in that way, the more developers will feel obligated to provide it.

That said, I don't "go looking" for great writing in games. I just observe that it's extremely rare.

As for computers being superior as a gaming platform for most games, that's inherent in the hardware and physical properties. No such limitation exists when it comes to storytelling.

That's not to say you can't create great games for tablets, it just means there's a good reason they're not abundant.

When it comes to writing in games, I don't think there's a good reason. There's a reason I can understand, but there's not a GOOD reason

But I'm not worried, really.

10 years from now, games will tell stories on the same level as movies - or beyond it.

Naturally, that means 1 good story in 50 if money remains the issue - but that's still better than a single great story each year or so

Crowdfunding has the potential to change all that, though.

 

[Menigal]

I generally don't care much about the writing in a game, as long as the game part of it is good. In games, all plots are excuse plots serving as a framework for what you're actually doing. If I'm having fun then I can ignore a lame story. It's when the game part's lacking that the story part of it really starts to grate.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I immediately think good game = good story.

 

[DArtagnan]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that.

I don't think games have to be about what I'm "doing" so much as what I'm experiencing.

As such, I don't mind "not doing much" - so long as I feel like I'm part of what's happening.

But it depends on the game, and I do largely prefer to be as big a part of what's happening as I can.

 

[txa1265]

I don't think saying "that's just how it is" is the way to make changes.

Absolutely - but sadly the best way to push in a direction is money ... and right now the money spent says that the best things about gaming are Madden, Call of Duty and DLC. Oh, and that smartphones are more important than the PC.

Obviously not the direction we would like, but fortunately we do get SOME games where writing and story and narrative immersion matter.

 

[DArtagnan]

Absolutely - but sadly the best way to push in a direction is money … and right now the money spent says that the best things about gaming are Madden, Call of Duty and DLC. Oh, and that smartphones are more important than the PC.

Obviously not the direction we would like, but fortunately we do get SOME games where writing and story and narrative immersion matter.

There are always people willing to take a risk and do something real with a big budget.

But with crowdfunding, we have the opportunity to look beyond the mass appeal.

 

[Menigal]

There are always people willing to take a risk and do something real with a big budget.

But with crowdfunding, we have the opportunity to look beyond the mass appeal.

I do hope we see a resurgence in genre games and get away from the homogenized crap dominating the market. I think we still need a little while to see how the crowdfunding thing will work out. Will the failures chase people away, or will the successes draw people in?

 

[DArtagnan]

I do hope we see a resurgence in genre games and get away from the homogenized crap dominating the market. I think we still need a little while to see how the crowdfunding thing will work out. Will the failures chase people away, or will the successes draw people in?

Yeah, that's the question. That's why I try to argue for leniency every chance I get, because the potential rewards are massive.

Unfortunately, people almost exclusively look at the shorter term - and if there's one thing most people enjoy, it's bitching when it's arguably justified.

 

[Pladio]

I do hope we see a resurgence in genre games and get away from the homogenized crap dominating the market. I think we still need a little while to see how the crowdfunding thing will work out. Will the failures chase people away, or will the successes draw people in?

I don't see how mixing genres is an issue. Why do you think so ?

 

[crpgnut]

Yes, the arcade jumping in Pagan was awesome. The QTE combat in the Witcher 2 was great. The MMO grinding in Amalur was highly praised, etc. That's why. Certain blends just don't work well together.

Sometimes it does though, so I'm a bigger fan of focused but can live with some attempts at blends.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yes, the arcade jumping in Pagan was awesome. The QTE combat in the Witcher 2 was great. The MMO grinding in Amalur was highly praised, etc. That's why. Certain blends just don't work well together.

That's not so much blending genres as it's incorporating bad elements from genres where they're more prevalent.

But I think the point was that it'd be nice to see games that don't desperately appeal wide - but try to stick to a vision, and don't fret if grandmothers or teenagers don't find them docile or AWSUM!!! enough to pay for.