Gameplay That Doesn't Match With The Story

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I was going to say True Crime: NYC because if you kill civilians you only get demoted. But then I remembered that's how NYPD actually does things.

 

[SoranMBane]

Pre-DLC Fallout 3, where, along with not being able to send in a radiation-immune follower, you can be wearing the best radiation suit in the game and use all the rad-x and radway in the world, and still die when you walk into that moderately irradiated chamber at the end. Jesus endings are trite enough even when they're done well, but this bag of nonsense was just inexcusable.

 

[Koshok]

My go-to example of of this happening is Farcry 3. And even though it was ninja'ed by the OP, I'm going to talk about it anyway.

This is a game that I really wanted to like. I found the gameplay fun, and the story was interesting. But the two of them together prevented me from getting very far.

It just didn't work from the start. Jason is saying, "I've never held a gun in my life," while the gameplay is saying, "What've we got here, an M1911? I can work with that. What am I killing?" Then the game just keeps reminding me of the dissonance. Like when you skin an animal, Jason groans or gags every time. The first couple times it makes sense, but one would think he'd get used to it after fifty or so. And then the game goes on to stress that Jason is a scared kid in the woods, while at the same point in time the game is sending me to kill komodo dragons to make a new wallet.

In Bioshock: Infinite, Tomb Raider (2013), heck, most games, I can ignore the inconsistencies between the gameplay and the story, and just push it to the "gameism" section of my brain. But I couldn't do that with Farcry 3.

 

[go-10]

The new Tomb Raider is basically the definition of this.

"oh no, I'm a poor lonely archaeologist, I can't do anything, oh killing this deer and this one guy was really hard I'm gonna go cry for a bit, now to go kill 500 men."

go to war, get appointed to the front lines "holy shit I've never killed ANYTHING before. Oh crap a bomb car just exploded and we're being surrounded." After killing 24 enemy soldiers, I realized that when your life hangs in the balance you do what needs to be done. Even if you spent the next 11 years with night terrors, insomnia, and social issues, you still do what needs to be done



NOW, back on topic. If there's one game I could think of it would be Castlevania Lords of Shadow, the story talked about how with every stage Gabriel (main character) gave himself more and more into darkness. Eventually he's completly engulfed by it and not a trace of humanity remains to be seen in him... according to the narrator that is, from beginning to end Gabriel looks, talks, acts, and fights the same way. Yeah way to converge the fact that I'm becoming something worse than what I set out to kill in the first place Konami :/

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

Devil May Cry: Dante, semi-immortal bad-ass demonhunter with style, can't get past the second level in DMC3.

These seem to have more to do with cutscene em/depowerment though

You do realize it's up to the player in these types of games to match the character in the cutscenes? The game gives you all the tools to do it.

 

[The Wykydtron]

The only time I remember feeling this way was when I was playing Spec Ops: The Line, and it was because of trophies popping up. The game tells a very serious, very dark, very disturbing story that sucks you in and makes you--Trophy Unlocked! Twenty Head Shots! Good Job!! Yahtzee pointed that out in his review of the game too. Every other game I've played I've never really felt like gameplay and story don't mix well.

Well, I guess that one part in Assassin's Creed III where you go rescue you a certain someone from the bad guys in present times. Desmond goes on a murder rampage, killing guards left and right who most likely aren't even Templars, just people earning a paycheck, and then on his way out he reveals he had a way to completely avoid killing anyone but decided not to use it. Not sure if that counts though.

Weren't that the point though innit? Another hollow excuse for killing more US soliders. Just like Walker himself! Awesome! I actually really like the gameplay in Spec Ops. It's the music and aesthetic I think. There's always some "America fuck yeah" type guitars in the background and if you want a game where it's all buildings, sand and horribly burned civilians but looks gorgeous it's Spec Ops. All gritty and realistic while also being colourful in its own way.

I just recently got Spec Ops and holy fuck is it good. I'm probably retreading old ground covered on release but I DON'T GIVE A FAWK I don't care, deal with it yo'

I'm actually going to play it once again on FUBAR difficulty just because I find the gameplay fun while also loving the story. Rather fun watching Walker go batshit loopy while trying to mask his really, really, REALLY terrible decisions as good and logical.

Oh yeah the actual question... Umm. Dishonoured? Just a little bit.

"Here we're going to give you all this AWESOME stuff! Fold-away sword! Crossbow! Bombs! Rat powers! Dragon Shout! And much much more!"

"By the way, if you use any of this, we're going to give you the bad ending regardless of positive sub-objectives completed and everybody fucking hates you. Have fun using exclusively the sleep darts and chokehold! Might as well challenge yourself for a full Ghost run."

At least the DLC gives you Chokedust. Full fucking Ninja Mode right there.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I actually really like the gameplay in Spec Ops.

I thought it was good, too. A lot of people were saying the gameplay was bad "intentionally" but I don't think that was the case. It's pretty typical for a TPS in terms of both execution and quality and, well... I find cover-based shooters fun.

Plus, like you said, the aesthetic and the soundtrack really helped. Made it that little bit more special than it would have been otherwise.

 

[Zeldias]

Every turn-based RPG ever.

 

[broca]

Spec Ops: The Line is the one game where i felt like gameplay and story belonged to entirely different games. The great story about the evil of war and killing and the random cover based shooter with body count in the hundreds and the horrible ai just felt completely unrelated.

In Bioshock Infinte my problem was less that the gameplay did not match the story and more that the game play stood out because it was merely ok while the rest of the game (story, atmosphere,..) were mostly great.

 

[Miss G.]

As much as I liked the game, I felt this was also the case. Vigors were the same, they were never really properly linked with the story. In Bioshock 1 and 2 the enemies were hooked on it and you needed them to level the playing field, but in Bioshock Infinite it felt like they were there "because it's a Bioshock thing".

It did not ruin the game for me, but I think if they'd put a bit more work into that section it'd have been a lot stronger.

Writing stories can be difficult, writing stories for games that match the gameplay can be even more difficult. Especially if either the story is being developed seperate from the gameplay or the story writer doesn't know how to handle story telling through gameplay.

There are very few games that handle it well. I can't remember many. Maybe Bastion and Journey.

For now I want to talk about games that don't handle it well. The most well known example is probably Bioshock: Infinite. The Plasmids (that's what they are) don't fit in the world of BS:I. The gameplay itself is okay, but it just doesn't match with the story.

The vigors do fit in with the story's setting of the city as they're both based off the idea of things shown at the World's Fairs held back in the day, particularly the more science/invention related ones (in-game info and Word-of-God). In-game Columbia was presented at a World's Fair to show off American invention at its finest before it started on the path to isolating itself from the union, and by the time the story starts, the vigors are making their debut at Columbia's own version of the fair, that's why they're not as widely in use yet despite all the posters and other advertisements around. As far as the common Columbian is concerned, these are just the latest batch of new and unfamiliar products on display and just something to kill a bit of time before the main event - the raffle. Many things like Coca-Cola, Belgium's first airmail service, and the Ferris wheel were introduced similarly at these fairs as new inventions/products/sevices that people held demos for and give samples for common folk and investors alike to try out, as is shown when you get Possession as a free sample, play one of the fair games using Bucking Bronco and see the live vigor demo (and the Handy Man) as you walk around. Usually the ones that garner the most interest and financial support start to show up in everyday life (provided they stay marketable) and over time they become commonplace- like the plasmids in Rapture.

Its entirely plausible that if Booker had come a number of years after vigors became popular amongst the privileged, possibly as just another 'sign' to further superiority over the minorities living there, he would've found the vigors in as much use as their plasmid cousins and perhaps even more screwed up inhabitants.

That said, since these are new products, the vigor upgrades don't make sense in the story, as a sort've real-world equivalent would've been like introducing your new drink (let's use Coca-Cola for an example) and already having money for and market priority in vending machines full of different flavors produced when you haven't even given the fair goers and potential investors a chance to try it in its original state yet.

 

[VonKlaw]

The only time I remember feeling this way was when I was playing Spec Ops: The Line, and it was because of trophies popping up. The game tells a very serious, very dark, very disturbing story that sucks you in and makes you--Trophy Unlocked! Twenty Head Shots! Good Job!! Yahtzee pointed that out in his review of the game too. Every other game I've played I've never really felt like gameplay and story don't mix well.

Well, I guess that one part in Assassin's Creed III where you go rescue you a certain someone from the bad guys in present times. Desmond goes on a murder rampage, killing guards left and right who most likely aren't even Templars, just people earning a paycheck, and then on his way out he reveals he had a way to completely avoid killing anyone but decided not to use it. Not sure if that counts though.

actually works for spec ops though i found. its questioning the player as much as anything. "why do you enjoy shooting people in the head?"

Yeah, it was pretty fun watching my trophy whore dad play through that trying to platinum it, whilst realizing that people doing horrible shit in games for pointless trophies was one of the things the game was actually getting at.

OT: TESIV: Oblivion's story felt ruined by that stupid "everything levels up with you" mechanic and the fact you can join factions that are completely inappropriate for your characters build. Know fuck all spells? Become Mage Guild leader anyway. Can't fight for shit? Fighters Guild Champion, YEAH! Being able to play through through the Mages Guild questline by just bashing everyones face in with a sword just felt stupid.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

A lot of people say that the newer Assassin's Creed games are no good because they make too many changes, or focus too much on the modern-day plot, or whatever. Some grievances are valid, some aren't. Personally, I really enjoyed Revelations and AC3, and I think the series has continually gotten better, but again that's just my opinion. However, I have to say that where they definitely did right by gamers was by adding in the '100% synch' challenges to each mission or sequence from Revelations onwards.

Hear me out. It does tie in to this thread because my point for gameplay not matching story is the first few games of the series. Namely, you're supposed to play as a stealthy assassin who doesn't go around murdering civillians and stays in the shadows all the time until it's the right point to strike. However, it's far easier in the earlier games to just wade in and kill guards left, right and centre to reach your target, then stabbity-stab them in the middle of a crowded place full of people trying to kill you in turn. Some of the stealthy bits are easy I suppose, others are pretty difficult. And the games don't reward you in any way either for using the canon stealth approach. The first game is especially jarring because the combat is just so easy compared to any of the others.

That's where the sequels are better, because although it's more difficult to do the stealth, you're rewarded for effectively following the 'proper' way to do things. Fine, it's not perfect, there are still pelnty of times when fighting instead of sneaking is the apparently correct way to complete the objective, although this seems to be much less so by the time of AC3 (for example, the extensive stealth approach required if you want 100% synch during the Battle of Bunker Hill). That becomes a case where gameplay and story do actually match, thus becoming a stark improvement on the series origins...

I would say that AC3 is certainly an example of the OP's story not matching gameplay, but for different reasons. Connor is supposedly trying (and if this is a spoiler... well it's the game concept, I guess stop reading?) to protect his people and keep their place on their land. Right. How does settling a bunch of Europeans and freed slaves on the older african american's land he has presumably inherited furthering that goal? The entire "mini-game" of building the settlement is directly counterproductive to the main character's motivation. That's... a problem of story vs. gameplay making no sense, at all.

Now, moments of gameplay inconsistency in set-pieces (the Kai-Lang thing someone mentioned, other Cut Scene frustrations like that) are going to crop up in games until we can manage a systematic theory of player choice = gameplay options fully realized by both technological, financial, and other resource expansions sufficient to cover that - but an entire system in a game (the way a game is played) that doesn't work with the story is something we need to call out and address, because there really isn't a need for it or a limitation that requires it - it is simply lazy / failing to consider the product as a whole cohesive experience.

 

[Rariow]

Pretty much any game where you're supposed to be playing one of the good guys and the enemies are human when you think about it. Stuff like Doom gets a free pass because you're shooting demons, but in stuff like Call of Duty you're supposed to be this heroic guy... who slaughters hundreds of dudes because they happen to be wearing a different coloured shirt than you. Hell, even more plot-oriented games like Dragon Age fall into this type of trap. You're a hero who's saving the world from evil demons? Let's kill people whose only sin is that they're starving and want something to eat for an hour!

Hell, this syndrome is what made Spec Ops: The Line so effective. You're so used to this completely insane waste of human life in the interest of gameplay that you're horrified when a game shows you what this kind of action would cost in the real world.

 

[GonzoGamer]

GTA IV had this sort of problem. There was that sort of moral choice system, shall I save this guy or spare him. But it was a bit pointless if the very next thing you did was run over a bunch of civilians.

Exactly what I was going to say. All of R*'s games this gen have had this problem.
I hope they try to get some other sort of emotional drama with GTA V other than death grief. A romance maybe, anything else would be more fitting.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Halo. You're an incredibly advanced, designed from the ground up, one-badass-to-rule-them-all, super-soldier a la Crysis and you can't even run at a decent speed. Suffers incredibly badly from cutscene empowerment.

I forgive it though because in the end, all the gameplay mechanics work together to still make a lot of fun.

As an opposite example, Ninja Gaiden Black/2. You may not be able to dispatch your foes with just one hit but that's the only thing that doesn't match up. You are just as fast and powerful (sometimes faster) as you are in the cutscenes

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Hell, even more plot-oriented games like Dragon Age fall into this type of trap. You're a hero who's saving the world from evil demons? Let's kill people whose only sin is that they're starving and want something to eat for an hour!

Yeah... death happens at your hands in a lot of games, and the who is often left unaddressed... but Dragon Age does cover this to more of an extent than most people realize (probably because we are used to games not looking at it). Thedas is a violent place. People - pretty much everyone you see from the farmhand to the King and all those in between - walk around armed, be it with a knife or a sword or a club. You might notice the distinct lack of "police" and legal system. There's the Arls and their soldiers, who dispense justice and keep order in some capacity, but it seems largely on the individual (or the community if they form one) to protect themselves, avenge wrongs perpetrated against them, and basically get along. That drastically reduced the amount of "innocent civilians" you actually encounter right there.

Additionally, in Dragon Age Origins (+Awakening if you want to stretch it a bit) you are out to do something specifically beneficial to the entirety of the world (defeating the Blight, fighting the Darkspawn) as part of an organization (albeit a greatly diminished one, thanks to the loss of most members in the immediate area) that operates outside of any normal boundaries by the consent of the nobility/royal authority of every nation in recognition of this higher calling. Anyone who sets themselves in opposition to you, therefore, is an acceptable loss in the pursuit of this goal.

I think you are thinking specifically of the townspeople in Lothering who come up to you and try to take the bounty on you, which is a clear cut case of self defense. Or possibly the elimination of the casteless thug association in the Dwarven section? They are criminals. You kill more darkspawn than anything in Dragon Age - by far and away over any other group - and the human (elven/dwarven) groups you do fight are almost all criminal elements that would otherwise plague any decent, hardworking, average person in that world.

Now... when you get into Dragon Age 2... it gets considerably more murky. Hawke ends up in opposition to a lot of criminal elements, but also a lot of average elements or questionable situations - and without the "higher calling" issue to back him/her up and without the extending authority and without any real motivation beyond self-gain or the benefit of personal friends. So I can see some issues there regarding the "trap" you mention. I have a hard time seeing it for the Dragon Age Origins / Awakenings games though, unless you can supply what you are thinking of specifically when you mention that? I'm more than open to the discussion - as I am a multiple playthrough enthusiast of these games and even could say I study them for the issues they bring up and explore.

 

[hermes]

The most extreme example I got is GTA 4. The game goes to great length to portrait the protagonist as a sympathetic man that made bad decisions back in the day and is trying to redeem himself by escaping his past... But nothing you learn about his past can be compared to the dozens of people you gleefully obliterated in the last couple hours, so the whole experience feels insincere. This is not the same as Sleeping Dogs or LA Noire that encourage a particular play style by punishing you for breaking the law; in GTA 4, the gameplay includes being as wild and ruthless as possible, but unlike Saints Row, its not tongue-in-cheek about it.

On the other hand, it has the same problem most open world games have: lack of real agency.
"-Batman, the Joker has poisoned Gotham and we have less than an hour to stop him."
"-Great, plenty of time left to collect some shinny trophies..."

Another kind of inconsistency is "gameplay/cutscene inconsistency", which many JRPG are guilty of. Basically, ever since FF7, there has been dozens of games where writers kill or maim a party member to add to the drama, but since phoenix down/cure/rise/visit a church/etc are relatively cheap items or spells usable during battle, death in that setting should be relatively inconsequential. However, plot kills seems to be different than battle kills (even those caused by a meteor to the face) in the sense they are irreversible.

 

[Scott Rothman]

Catherine!

Here's a dark and twisted story about a manchild struggling against his own shortcomings, people are mysteriously dying in their sleep, interactions with a woman who may or may not actually exist...

Gameplay? You push blocks around so you can climb them.

I loved this game.