Games with great story but bad gameplay

[alphamalet]

snip

How though? heavy rain was sold as a ps3 GAME. you might have to explain this to the 3 million plus people who brought it as one. I don't think you understand the word fact as whoever these people you keep referring to have no way of convincing everyone to agree with them, ever. Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

I don't know what else to tell you beside that this just smacks of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. OF COURSE SONY MARKETED IT AS A GAME. If they didn't and called it a "digital interactive experience," most people would wonder what that was. Additionally, the people I am quoting are experts on the field of study. IT IS NOT AN OPINION! It doesn't matter who disagrees with them. You might decide to call a song a "movie", that doesn't make you right, or undercut the FACT that a song is a song.

Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

Look, I'm glad you are "studying" game design, but you need to appreciate that when someone who has a formal education on the subject matter tells you that what you are saying is wrong based on the discourse of experts in the field, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.

the challenge is to try and get the best ending, sure you can do nothing but that would result in a dark ending and everyone one would die. no challenge = no game, i don't get where you get this from and i disagree that there is no challenge in heavy rain. and sure, you know the opinion of every heavy rain player out there.

Saying that you can have a game with no challenge is just flat out wrong, again. You need a challenge to have a game. This is one of the simplest principles of game theory. You say the challenge is to get the "best ending". The "best ending" is something entirely relative to the person playing the game, and is going to elicit different emotions in each player that can't be quantified. Furthermore, this challenge you state is NOT derived from Heavy Rain's system of input/output, it comes from you, and was covered in my last post when I said all of this:

Prior Post:

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified.

Why this needed to be a game beside the fact that people decided to make it one. Well if it wasn't a game i would have no interest in it what so ever yet as a game its one of my Favorites.

This is just silly.

I can see that you failed my challenge of pointing to JUST ONE instance of meaningful gameplay. Doesn't that strike you as a problem in a GAME? Then you went on to say that it needed to be a game because they chose to make it one. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say someone has a real passion for music. They absolutely love it and what the public to experience their songs. Instead of just releasing it to the public in a traditional form, they instead decide they want to make a movie. This movie consists of about 20 soundtracks played to about five different still images that change over long periods of time on the big screen. Now you might like the music, hell you might even love the music, but you would be perfectly justified in questioning why it needed to be a film. After all, the quintessential aspect of a film is the rapid succession of still images (frames) to give the appearance of motion (full-motion video). If you aren't going to use that, and would instead just like to focus on music, then you shouldn't be making a film. It might have a gorgeous soundtrack, but it fails as a film.

Surely you would have to agree with this.
Now replace the word "music/soundtrack/songs" with story, replace "movie/film" with game, and replace "full-motion video" with gameplay and you have the exact same scenario at work.

Let me also add that your compulsory dismissal of other mediums of entertainment is a bit scary.

it adds tension, the sense of being there, an attachment to the characters, the feeling of guilt

What you are referring to is "suspension of disbelief." Movies, and books do all of this.

most importantly the feeling that its me controlling the story.

You can control a story in a digital visual novel as well, and you wouldn't have to be bogged down by the poor controls and needless roaming that Heavy Rain forces you to put up with.

You can continue to enjoy the same games with the same mechanics while i play some unique games that try to do something different. not sure what your problem is with playing something a little different now and then, don't worry you will still have your generic games to fall back on as they are not going away.

I'm not going to dignify this immaturity with a response. What I will do however is wish you well in your study of game design. Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but you have a LONG way to go. I used to think exactly as you did, and probably would have said much of the same things, before I read more into the subject. If you truly are committed to learning, I could recommend you a couple of great books.

Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman
Game Design Theory and Practice by Richard Rouse III

If you do end up reading either of those books then make sure you save this post. You'll get a kick out of it in the future. I'm going to let this conversation end here.

 

[Nothing Tra La La]

Rule of Rose, Rule of Rose, Rule of fucking ROOOOOSE
I love that game so hard. I would gladly sever a limb if it meant getting a movie adaptation (directed by Guillermo del Toro, if you please) for that incredible, wonderful game. But god DAMN, the gameplay makes RoR so utterly unplayable that it serious left me wondering if there was any playtesting for it at all.
I know that a big part of older survival horror games is rather clunky tank controls, but oh man... Rule of Rose suffers from the worst case of "useless protagonist" and ridiculously OP enemies that I couldn't bring myself to finish it. It's truly a shame, because the game's story and narrative is so damn good.

 

[wakeup]

snip

I don't know what else to tell you beside that this just smacks of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. OF COURSE SONY MARKETED IT AS A GAME. If they didn't and called it a "digital interactive experience," most people would wonder what that was. Additionally, the people I am quoting are experts on the field of study. IT IS NOT AN OPINION! It doesn't matter who disagrees with them. You might decide to call a song a "movie", that doesn't make you right, or undercut the FACT that a song is a song.

Before i end this discussion i have some points to make. Okay then if it isn't a game then what was it? Fundamentally it was a game. it wasn't sold as a movie, a book, a song or a visual novel. i frequent alot of professional gaming sites; the escapist, game trailers,CVG, ign, game spot i read OPM and Edge magazine every month. none, i mean none including this site has a problem calling Heavy rain a game and they all accept it as one. The thing is every one accepts and understands what a song is but not everyone agrees what makes a game, in fact there are many different views on what makes a game none of which are universally accepted.

Look, I'm glad you are "studying" game design, but you need to appreciate that when someone who has a formal education on the subject matter tells you that what you are saying is wrong based on the discourse of experts in the field, THEN YOU ARE WRONG.

Great for them. i just looked up the Definition of video games and guess what people disagree with them and provide alternate views on the matter. IM sure they would say your wrong as well. Please understand that what some people say in one country doesn't stay true to the rest of the world.

Saying that you can have a game with no challenge is just flat out wrong, again. You need a challenge to have a game. This is one of the simplest principles of game theory. You say the challenge is to get the "best ending". The "best ending" is something entirely relative to the person playing the game, and is going to elicit different emotions in each player that can't be quantified. Furthermore, this challenge you state is NOT derived from Heavy Rain's system of input/output, it comes from you, and was covered in my last post when I said all of this:

By this explanation alot of games are not games. QTE's can be failed in the game and the game presents them as being failed. therefore it is derived from input/output; there is a failure animation and a successful animation. another point, walking around the environment did present challenges such as finding clues. Did you even play the game.

This is just silly.

I can see that you failed my challenge of pointing to JUST ONE instance of meaningful gameplay. Doesn't that strike you as a problem in a GAME? Then you went on to say that it needed to be a game because they chose to make it one. Let me give you an analogy.

Let's say someone has a real passion for music. They absolutely love it and what the public to experience their songs. Instead of just releasing it to the public in a traditional form, they instead decide they want to make a movie. This movie consists of about 20 soundtracks played to about five different still images that change over long periods of time on the big screen. Now you might like the music, hell you might even love the music, but you would be perfectly justified in questioning why it needed to be a film. After all, the quintessential aspect of a film is the rapid succession of still images (frames) to give the appearance of motion (full-motion video). If you aren't going to use that, and would instead just like to focus on music, then you shouldn't be making a film. It might have a gorgeous soundtrack, but it fails as a film.

Surely you would have to agree with this.
Now replace the word "music/soundtrack/songs" with story, replace "movie/film" with game, and replace "full-motion video" with gameplay and you have the exact same scenario at work.

Let me also add that your compulsory dismissal of other mediums of entertainment is a bit scary.

Games provide much greater opportunities to tell stories than films due to the interactivity and length. I've read this statement so many times on these forums. Attempting to tell a good story in games deserves merit and i support any company that tries. If you don't agree that story is hugely important in games that's your taste in games. this is why as a game it interests me more than it would a film. as a film it would just be another action/ thriller. as a game it tries to do more and seeing as through beyond:two souls looks to have more game play elements it wasn't a failure. Heavy rain was a experiment and it was successful. I didn't dismiss other forms of entertainment i dismissed the idea of heavy rain being another form of entertainment.

What you are referring to is "suspension of disbelief." Movies, and books do all of this.
You can control a story in a digital visual novel as well, and you wouldn't have to be bogged down by the poor controls and needless roaming that Heavy Rain forces you to put up with.

So movies can make you feel guilty for the actions you made, wow i didn't know they had the ability to do that. There's no way you can compare the experience of playing heavy rain or the walking dead game to a visual novel. They wouldn't be the same.

I'm not going to dignify this immaturity with a response. What I will do however is wish you well in your study of game design. Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but you have a LONG way to go. I used to think exactly as you did, and probably would have said much of the same things, before I read more into the subject. If you truly are committed to learning, I could recommend you a couple of great books.

Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman
Game Design Theory and Practice by Richard Rouse III

If you do end up reading either of those books then make sure you save this post. You'll get a kick out of it in the future. I'm going to let this conversation end here.

how is it immature, by your definition there cant be any new genre's of games or completely new game play mechanics. Again i will state what you are taught will be different to what im taught, different cultures value things different. By this i mean i will never agree with you and i don't plan on changing my opinion any time soon. I apriciate that your not trying to insult even if your post doesn't read that way. we are different people and you have to understand that people will disagree with you and calling them outright WRONG is insulting. TO leave this on a nice note thanks for the recommendations, i can see your only trying to help. If you plan on replying, please do as i always like a healthy debate as long as it doesn't get insulting. I really mean this, have a good day, i wish you well and hope you go far in this industry.

 

[laggyteabag]

Mass Effect - That story in that game is brilliant, and the first time I played through the game I didnt really have any problems, then I played through 2 and 3, and the pile of criticism just grew.

Boring weapons, no variety in weapon categories, and all of the weapons just felt weak
The Makos horrendous handling
Boring powers
Next to no distinction between classes
Boring combat
Exploring countless planets to find collectables/ codex pieces
Boring enemies

All of these factors together make me not want to play Mass Effect, because the majority of the game is just SO boring, so i just download Mass Effect 1 saves from now on.

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

In my opinion, I'd have to go with the original Halo: CE and Mass Effect.

Halo: CE had a fantastic and well crafted story. It wasn't the most original, but it was presented in a way I thought was pretty damn good. Problem was, the gameplay itself just felt... boring. Boring and overly repetitive, with many of the environments looking so samey I would occasionally get lost just because I couldn't tell if I was making progress or accidentally going the wrong way. Luckily later games fixed this, but the original I still don't think was that great gameplay wise.

And with Mass Effect, this one has probably been covered enough that I don't need to go into detail. It's one of those games that I want to get into because all of my friends adore it and so does my own boyfriend, the combat just... sucks, though. Sucks so badly I almost want to just skip over it and play through ME2 and 3 without finishing 1 instead.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I'd say the Halo series. They never quite gripped me as FPS games, they feel like an introduction to the genre, almost a tutorial-level game, but I do rather like the setting and try to keep up with the story.

Are you being satirical here? I've heard many criticisms of Halo but never that it didn't have solid FPS gameplay

 

[alphamalet]

snip

I honestly wasn't expecting a reply, but seeing as how you responded in a positive manner, it would be rude to not do the same.

Before i end this discussion i have some points to make. Okay then if it isn't a game then what was it? Fundamentally it was a game. it wasn't sold as a movie, a book, a song or a visual novel.

This has more or less been what the entire conversation has been about. We both know it was labeled as a game, but under a lot of contemporary definitions, it shouldn't be called one. That was the point I was trying to make.

i frequent alot of professional gaming sites; the escapist, game trailers,CVG, ign, game spot i read OPM and Edge magazine every month. none, i mean none including this site has a problem calling Heavy rain a game and they all accept it as one.

This is more out of convenience than anything else. If they call it a game, everyone knows what they are talking about. If they call it an interactive digital expereince (which is what its closer to) they lose people. I believe Yahtzee started his review of Heavy Rain by saying that it was interactive story telling experience as opposed to a game, but then continued to refer to it as a game for the sake of convenience. I would also like to point out that all of the websites you have listed are written by critics, not experts of game theory.

The thing is every one accepts and understands what a song is but not everyone agrees what makes a game, in fact there are many different views on what makes a game none of which are universally accepted.

You are right, and perhaps this is one of the things that makes the medium we both love great. My point however is that for something to be a game, it needs gameplay, and gameplay has a few stricter definitions. One of the accepted definitions was made a few posts back when I defined the difference between interactivity and gameplay.

Great for them. i just looked up the Definition of video games and guess what people disagree with them and provide alternate views on the matter. IM sure they would say your wrong as well. Please understand that what some people say in one country doesn't stay true to the rest of the world.

There isn't a specific definition for a game, but most all definitions will have this in common:

-artificial conflict presented as a challenge
-system defined by rules
-results in a quantifiable outcome

Heavy Rain lacks a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. If you go back and read what really defines a game (i.e. not Webster or a dictionary) then you will probably run across this.

By this explanation alot of games are not games. QTE's can be failed in the game and the game presents them as being failed. therefore it is derived from input/output; there is a failure animation and a successful animation. another point, walking around the environment did present challenges such as finding clues. Did you even play the game.

Exactly! When you start to deconstruct a lot of common system, then you begin to question what is and isn't a game! In regards to Heavy Rain, the "failure" of quicktime events are as relative as the "best ending". Maybe someone wants to see Shelby beat up, and therefore intentionally disregards a button press. In their mind, this is "success". The game does not penalize you or impede your progress for doing this, meaning there is a lack of sufficient challenge presented by the game. In terms of walking around environments to find clues, I remember Heavy Rain flat-out telling you what to do if you take long enough, further adding to the lack of challenge. If I remember correctly, the only time that didn't happen was in the night club, but IMO that was a poorly designed section that was ambiguos to what needed to be done for Madison to get the attention of some perv. While I was wandering around and trying to figure out what to do, the pace of the story was suffering.

Games provide much greater opportunities to tell stories than films due to the interactivity and length.

I disagree. INTERACTIVITY gives a lot of opportunity, but I don't think gameplay is in the same boat. Like I said earlier, interactivity can be accomplished without it being a game. Gameplay is necessary for there to be a game, and since gameplay must present a challenge with quantifiable results, it is VERY hard to interject story telling into the mix. This is why cut-scenes exist (which interrupt gameplay), and this has lead to a lot of veterans in the industry saying that they don't believe a video game is the best place to tell a story.

Also, movies might lack length, but a TV series doesn't.

I've read this statement so many times on these forums. Attempting to tell a good story in games deserves merit and i support any company that tries.

I agree, it is something that deserves merit, I just think it needs to be prioritized correctly.

If you don't agree that story is hugely important in games that's your taste in games.

But the thing is...story is not hugely important to the idea of a game. Don't get me wrong, I love a good game with a great story, but story is not necessary to make a game, or to have a great game. Gameplay is what is necessary to not only have a game, but have a good game. Look at all of the 1980s arcade games, games still being played to this day. They don't have any story, but what they have is very satisfying gameplay that has kept people coming back for years. Card games have no story, but I'm willing to bet you've been excited to play one at least once in your life.

Remember: A game can be a game with no story. A game can't be a game with no gameplay, it becomes something. Gameplay is the most important aspect; it's what defines the medium. Like I said, I love a good story, but gameplay needs to be prioritized.

So movies can make you feel guilty for the actions you made, wow i didn't know they had the ability to do that. There's no way you can compare the experience of playing heavy rain or the walking dead game to a visual novel. They wouldn't be the same.

Well, a movie can't, but interactivity with appropriate agency can. But like I said, interactivity with agency can exist outside a game.


Don't get me wrong, I like Heavy Rain just fine, it's just that I believe it fails as a game.

TO leave this on a nice note thanks for the recommendations, i can see your only trying to help. If you plan on replying, please do as i always like a healthy debate as long as it doesn't get insulting. I really mean this, have a good day, i wish you well and hope you go far in this industry.

I sincerely do appreciate this and wish you well on your study too.

 

[TheRussian]

Bioshock. Incredibly well written story, floaty easily broken combat.

 

[White Deer]

For me it'd be Spec Ops: The Line. It has a great story, but the gameplay is average.

What annoys me the most is that instead of a slider for the mouse sensitivity, the developers added a number system like on the consoles. My mouse is always either too sensitive or not enough.

 

[TheRussian]

Spec Ops: The Li-

Spec Ops: the Line.

Spec Ops: The Line

I've been ninja'd to spec ops

Spec Ops

Spec Ops - The Line

Ah. Not that I didn't see this coming... But still.
I think the bad gameplay seemed almost deliberate. Upon first hearing this before playing I assumed it was a copout by fans who were trying to make excuses, but then I played it and suddenly it seemed a lot more clear.

Yeah, the gameplay is intentionally made to mimic the average modern military game. Creating something unique that was fun to play and different from all the other games would have completely missed the point. It saddens me to see that so many people completely missed the fact that it was trying to be the same as every other shooter in order to effectively fulfill its role as a commentary on the state of modern military shooters.

Yes! Thank you! It seems the three of us understand that Spec Ops' bland gameplay was completely intentional. What's interesting to me is that the characters sort of acknowledge this fact, through exasperation around the combat.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I can't think of too many games at the moment, but the one that sticks in my mind is the first Yakuza. But it's story is average and the gameplay isn't bad but the amount of battles it forces you into makes you never want to play it again after you complete it.

I'd say Xenosaga II, I tried it on whim cause it looked fun and I enjoyed the setting despite the anime cliches but
I never got past the fifth boss no matter how much I grinded and I could never work up motivation to finish it because the gameplay didn't interest me anymore.

And all this Spec-Ops talk is making me realize I need to play it in order to discuss it.

 

[Elgnirp100]

I am going to go ahead and start a war of Escapist vs. me by saying MGS1.

What can I say? I loved the story more than any video game story in a long time, but the gameplay just left me with an overall feeling of "meh".

It may be because I've only played recently and am used to games with better controls, but the sneaking bits just felt like a chore and the fighting (except the boss battles, they were AWESOME) just felt plain bad.

MGS2, 3 and 4 on the other hand...(I haven't gotten round to playing Peace Walker yet, but I'm sure it will be just as good)

 

[The_Scrivener]

Final Fantasy VIII.

The Walking Dead Game.

 

[The_Scrivener]

I am going to go ahead and start a war of Escapist vs. me by saying MGS1.

What can I say? I loved the story more than any video game story in a long time, but the gameplay just left me with an overall feeling of "meh".

It may be because I've only played recently and am used to games with better controls, but the sneaking bits just felt like a chore and the fighting (except the boss battles, they were AWESOME) just felt plain bad.

MGS2, 3 and 4 on the other hand...(I haven't gotten round to playing Peace Walker yet, but I'm sure it will be just as good)

The gameplay was fine. Except it wasn't.

I fully agree with you. The gameplay was a bunch of good ideas and none of them were polished. That game handles garbage.

To be honest, I don't get the appeal of the story either. That game's "cutscenes" are so long and they don't tell anything that hasn't been told 1000 times in every crappy Tom Clancy novel.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Alpha Protocol should be the immediate answer for this question every time.

I've never actually played this but every time I hear about good stories in gaming but with...bad gaming, this is the title that comes up.

---

Would Heavy Rain count? I don't feel there was enough gameplay but since it's exclusive to the PS3 I guess it would count. I wouldn't say the story was great either honestly but I'm not going to say it was a bad story. It was a good enough story for me to have enjoyed it the first time but I had no desire to go back and try it again.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I am going to go ahead and start a war of Escapist vs. me by saying MGS1.

What can I say? I loved the story more than any video game story in a long time, but the gameplay just left me with an overall feeling of "meh".

It may be because I've only played recently and am used to games with better controls, but the sneaking bits just felt like a chore and the fighting (except the boss battles, they were AWESOME) just felt plain bad.

MGS2, 3 and 4 on the other hand...(I haven't gotten round to playing Peace Walker yet, but I'm sure it will be just as good)

Not at all.

I'd only war with you over MGS4 because I think the gameplay and story are both awful.

To be honest, I don't get the appeal of the story either. That game's "cutscenes" are so long and they don't tell anything that hasn't been told 1000 times in every crappy Tom Clancy novel.

I'd say it's the characters that make it so memorable. I'd also argue about there's also underlying themes in each game but it's perfectly understandable if you don't enjoy it.

 

[CityofTreez]

Bioshock. Incredibly well written story, floaty easily broken combat.

I've heard this since the game came out and I still don't get it. Bio 2 did improve its gameplay, (And I'm not saying Bioshock's gameplay is perfect, either) but the amount of times I've heard the original have "broken" or "terrible" gameplay is baffling to me.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Bioshock. Incredibly well written story, floaty easily broken combat.

I've heard this since the game came out and I still don't get it. Bio 2 did improve its gameplay, (And I'm not saying Bioshock's gameplay is perfect, either) but the amount of times I've heard the original have "broken" or "terrible" gameplay is baffling to me.

I've never heard the game-play called terrible. But it's definitely broken, the tonics allow you to do so much (become invisible, make your hits electric, make it so you get health when you hit the enemy) and have no backdraw. It doesn't force you to change strategies as you're a god compared to everyone else.

 

[CityofTreez]

Bioshock. Incredibly well written story, floaty easily broken combat.

I've heard this since the game came out and I still don't get it. Bio 2 did improve its gameplay, (And I'm not saying Bioshock's gameplay is perfect, either) but the amount of times I've heard the original have "broken" or "terrible" gameplay is baffling to me.

I've never heard the game-play called terrible. But it's definitely broken, the tonics allow you to do so much (become invisible, make your hits electric, make it so you get health when you hit the enemy) and have no backdraw. It doesn't force you to change strategies as you're a god compared to everyone else.

The tonics could have drawback (do they in Bio 2?) but playing on hard/survivor makes some of the tonics very valuable. For example having static charge and natural camo equipped is extremely valuable for stealth. It does get rather easy the more your progress in the game, though.

 

[Iwata]

I'd say the Halo series. They never quite gripped me as FPS games, they feel like an introduction to the genre, almost a tutorial-level game, but I do rather like the setting and try to keep up with the story.

Are you being satirical here? I've heard many criticisms of Halo but never that it didn't have solid FPS gameplay

Not at all! And mind you, I didn't dislike the games. I just felt they played it far too safe, to the point that, like I said, it almost felt like a tutorial to the rest of the genre.