Overwatch and ludonarrative dissonance

[Redryhno]

Granted Riot went and threw it all in the dumpster so what do I know

To be fair, that seems to be their default setting. They said they got everything they wanted to get done with chat problems six months ago and they still haven't gotten to the bigger problem with the silent ragers that just ruin games because of the stupidest things. Assassins are getting fucked again, not confirmed, but their stance on wanting assassins to give 3 seconds of counterplay when they're far ahead doesn't instill much hope.

To me the it's on par with character backstories in fighting games. Everybody has a favorite, but they're all ultimately meaningless.

Eh, there's alot of FGC's that have their gameplay very much directly linked to their backstory though...

Well, you know Overwatch's gameplay is non-canon, right?

So, the story and the gameplay are completely separate.

That's why I think the story's worthless. Something they couldn't even tack on the game. So it's 90% Wikia, 10% misc.

Then every story's worthless. Read a book? Well what are you supposed to do with the book now? its dead weight. Worthless.

I would rather then separate the story than bend over backwards to come up with some bullshit reason why its canonically possible to have a team of six mei's fighting a team of six more mei's.

cloning? time travel? your narrative choices for that sort of situation could be counted on one hand. Even TF2 kind bullshits its way around it. When was the last time one of their story videos remembered there's two teams, let alone multiple members of the same class/person running around on one?

I don't think you can compare a book to a game in this way dude...He said the game doesn't contain these things and that's why he doesn't like it.

Also, on the TF2 stuff, pretty much all the Meet The "____" videos, MannVMachine release, etc. They acknowledge both teams and multiple clones of people being in them on a pretty regular basis...

OT:

Why does a multiplayer game need to have a solid connection between gameplay and narrative? You really want to add in faction restrictions as well when Blizz put in the no dupes restriction just a few weeks ago when the game barely has two dozen heroes? And six months after release they let out the first new one with no teaser, confirmation, or timetable for the next?

I mean, if this were a single-player title or even a single-player campaign that had these things in it, you might have a point, but seriously dude, it's multiplayer only, and heavily competitive at that(in idea if not mechanics or ranking).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Moments like this are sad because it tells me that, for all of its evolution, gaming is still stunted in a lot of ways. Blizzard was able to come up with an interesting world with a lot of aspects for it with Overwatch, but the game that goes with it? People just killing each other with shooty bang bang (Smashy slice slice in the case of Genji and Reinhardt).

I felt this way in my recent Bioshock 1/2 playthroughs. Bioshock 1, especially, keeps striking me as this game that desperately wants to be something else, from its' political and philosophical overtones and themes to its' soundtrack of sad strings to its' portrayal of everyone (even the basic mooks) as victims as well as monsters. Bioshock seems to want to do something else, but ends up being a first person shooter that only just manages to justify its' FPS trappings draped over a gameworld that is so much better suited for something else.

Having recently gotten around to playing Burial at Sea, it was obvious that the stealth/evasion gameplay was a much better fit to the theme and mood of Rapture then pure straight up FPS ever was. But every time I play a Bioshock game I am left with the feeling that there must be some better way to capitalize on the great setting that is Rapture rather than squander it on bogstandard FPS conflict resolution.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well, you know Overwatch's gameplay is non-canon, right?

So, the story and the gameplay are completely separate.

That's why I think the story's worthless. Something they couldn't even tack on the game. So it's 90% Wikia, 10% misc.

Then every story's worthless. Read a book? Well what are you supposed to do with the book now? its dead weight. Worthless.

How did you even get there.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

Overwatch's story is not meant to enhance the game, it's meant to leverage merchandise sales. It's like how Disney movies only exist to provide a launch pad for diversified product marketing. Play the game, but don't think about how little sense it makes in relation to the lore; this is true of most games.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Well, as a someone who played TF2 and would gladly switch to Overwatch if his PC wouldn't be a piece of junk(also, it'd be nice if Blizzard would change its pricing politics) AND someone who's first contact with OW cinematics was Meet the Bastion vid, i'd have to agree with:

Like you said, it works because they're funny vignettes (and the game itself is comic in spirit, so they go hand in hand).

TF2 does both though. Most people who play it probably don't care about the story behind it, but there is one, and it ties into the gameplay.

In lore-focused material("Meet the..." videos etc.) for TF2, most characters are depicted as violent sociopaths. In gameplay TF2 characters act like a bunch of violent sociopaths.
In Bastion video, our robot with PTSD(?) wants to break with violent past and lead a peaceful life with his birdie friend... cut to gameplay where he gladly murderates opposing team and gets POTG.

...Or maybe that was a different model? huh.
Anyway, not the first instance where i hear ludobablative missonance complaint about OW video. Maybe it's for the best that Blizzard doesn't consider them canon?

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Well, you know Overwatch's gameplay is non-canon, right?

So, the story and the gameplay are completely separate. And I kind of like it that way.You have a bright fun game where you can kill each other for fun but there's also an extended universe you can learn about if you care. Which personally I do. The comics are fun, and the shorts are amazing.

So there is like no point to the gamethen?

The point is to have rooty tooty point and shooty fun with friends online. For me, it's fine.

 

[Empyrean]

I think big part of why games can't fully utilize art/narrative/story, because it's risky.

As original post said, there are smaller games that are trying to break that, but huge companies are not willing to experiment too much and they are a business, their goal is to make money.

In early days story and narrative weren't that important, since games weren't held as form of art. Now things changed, but big companies would rather take changes slowly and see what comes out of it, than do huge experiment and risk a lot.

EDIT:
A lot of people don't want lore interfere with gameplay. So many people mad, when they can't skip cut scene, when story is linear or when gameplay is restricted by it's story.

And this applies even more on multiplayer games. No MMORPG (in my experience) forced you to actually read quest logs deeply before you could click "accept". And I think it's not for no reason.

I think Bastion movie is not to really dig deep into lore, but to act as PR. To attract attention and more players.

 

[Redryhno]

I think big part of why games can't fully utilize art/narrative/story, because it's risky.

As original post said, there are smaller games that are trying to break that, but huge companies are not willing to experiment too much and they are a business, their goal is to make money.

In early days story and narrative weren't that important, since games weren't held as form of art. Now things changed, but big companies would rather take changes slowly and see what comes out of it, than do huge experiment and risk a lot.

I'd argue that the majority of games that try to be story first and foremost have largely fallen on their faces though. There's the classic Gone Home and Machine for Pigs examples, as well as the more recent Sunset of pretentiousness and Life is Strange-ly inept and inconsistent in-universe rules.

I mean, just because games are recognized as art doesn't mean that they all need to ascribe to become something "greater" as a collective whole. Hell, part of what made gaming recognized was the uniqueness of the medium and gameplay was at the center of that, not the lack of ludonarrative dissonance. And I don't understand why it's that much of a sin that gameplay and story don't perfectly matchup in this instance. It's a competitive shooter, who gives a crap? The world is supposed to be much different from the game for a reason, mainly so that there's a game to begin with and not just a series of animated shorts(which I'm getting the distinct feeling is the only thing people really want when it comes to the gameworld).

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

This is actually one of my biggest problems with Overwatch. They did really a great job of creating an engaging (if derivative) world and populating it with colourful, interesting characters who have motivations and desires and grudges and storied pasts. Then you get into the game itself, and you're Soldier 76 fighting back-to-back with Reaper. Or Ana, shooting her own daughter in the face.

It's jarring. It would make more sense if it was all a training simulation, and there was some alternate Man vs. Machine mode where the actual plot progressed.

Funnily enough, the other major example of the same dissonance - TF2 - doesn't bother me at all. Mainly because the game is so objectively ridiculous that an explanation is not only unnecessary, but undesirable. Overwatch is slightly more serious - maybe "less satirical" is a better word - so the difference between plot and gameplay is more pronounced.

 

[Aerosteam]

Think of it like Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles producing a TV show to sell a toy line. "You watched the show, no play the toys!". The story/development in the show has absolutely nothing to do with the product you're buying. The companies behind these want you to get attached to the characters so it's easier to sell products based on them. "This shirt has Raphael on it! I want to buy that!".

For Overwatch's case, "This game has Bastion in it! I want to play that!".

Overwatch's story is not meant to enhance the game, it's meant to leverage merchandise sales. It's like how Disney movies only exist to provide a launch pad for diversified product marketing. Play the game, but don't think about how little sense it makes in relation to the lore; this is true of most games.

This guy gets it.

 

[Joccaren]

There's no need for discussion because it's something that doesn't actually effect the games from either a gameplay or story perspective. Using film as a comparison, it's like spending time discussing which minor variation of camera filter was used: sure there's about 5 seconds of talk to be had in the exceptionally rare case of it being relevant, but it takes a back seat to the actual discussion to be had.

I've seen this view popping up more and more over the last year, and honestly I don't think its correct.

Movie example; The movie is telling the story of a sad young girl who lost her parents in a war. Every camera shot in the film is frantic, frenetic and chaotic. Fast, constant action. All the points where the story tries to show how vulnerable the girl is, it puts in camera angles that make her look large and strong. The music and story and dialogue are portraying sad, slower paced tragedy, while the camera angles, shots and editing are trying to make the girl some CoD war hero like you'd see in a Michael Bay film.

Would you sit there in the movie and go "Yeah, I don't care about this incongruity. This is totally normal and A-ok, makes perfect sense". No, critics would rag on it and it would either want to be a damn good satire about bad camera shots, otherwise it'd be panned as a shit movie.

Yet we defend this all the time in gaming as just 'par for the course', 'minor nitpicking'. There was a time this was true of movies as well. I've seen Citizen Kane cited as the first movie to really utilise cinematographic techniques to enhance its narrative and screenplay, rather than older films that just used static shots with no real thought put into them. Its the same thing we're looking at with games now. With movies though, we see that thought and attention to detail as normal because for decades that has been the standard. In games? Not so much.

Ludonarrative dissonance is a thing, and it does affect how one experiences a game. That doesn't mean a game that is ludonarratively dissonant is a horrible game and everything sucks. The game can still be fun if you treat gameplay and story as separate - something I've seen people espousing the view that its not a thing say those who think it is do, while I'd disagree - because as soon as you start looking at narrative and gameplay together, as a combined whole rather than separate things to be enjoyed on their own, ludonarrative dissonance becomes apparent. When you're running through a warzone unarmed with a small child to protect, but you're mashing the A button to do mad skills DMC combos on everyone around you, while the music tries to sound tragic and the dialogue talks about how there's no time to fight, you've got to get out of there and save the kid. Its stupid and ridiculous, yet so many games do it.
And honestly, as the thread points out, the biggest reason for that is we are still limited to plain still-shots for most of our gameplay language; combat is still the main and almost only form of interaction we give the player [Platforming too I guess, that's been there from the start too, can't discount that]. That's starting to change, and we're figuring out how to engage players in other ways. As we develop these other gaming techniques, these other camera angles, and figure out how they should be used, we'll see ludonarrative dissonance fade more into the background as we are able to match themes from the story better with gameplay elements, rather than having only one or two elements we can reliably match with. And games have done such with great effect at times.

Modern Warfare. At the end the nuke goes off and you're blown up and die there, crawling through the city. Would that scene have worked as well if enemy NPCs jumped out every five minutes and you were interrupted with normal gameplay of shooting everything and running and gunning?
No, no it wouldn't have. It would have just felt disingenuous and incongruous with what the story was trying to tell at that point. So they changed their 'camera angle'. They altered the gameplay.
An example of doing it bad would be Kai Leng in ME3. Cutscene and story he's some unstoppable badass. The players fight him and kill him in quite literally 2 seconds. Things just didn't mesh, and he's one of the worse things about that game.

Having story and gameplay align is not essential for a good game. However, it often can distinguish a great game from a merely good one. Its all about building an experience for the player. If two components of your game - be they the gameplay mechanics, the graphics, the soundtrack, the writing and story, the voice acting, or anything else - try to provide a different experience to each other, it'll stand out. Especially if its occurring at the same moment in the game, rather than two separate moments. Matching all the pieces together into a comprehensive goal is something noteworthy in gaming right now, sad as that may be. We're still a young medium, stuck being made by a generation who grew up with movies to influence them on how to tell a compelling story - hence why many try to be plainly cinematic. Once we manage to move past this phase, things should improve, and the complaint may become meaningless as we learn to create consistent experiences, and expand our gameplay repertoire to help us do so.

 

[MHR]

I don't see why it matters that much.

Team Fortress 2 is similar. There's a story there, but it doesn't matter. No matter what happens in the canon, it never forgets where these characters came from and what their base purpose is. Their origins are as mercenaries that murder each other constantly for control of gravel and hats.

That *is* the story while you play. For an expansion on that, you can go read the many official comics made about it. But the stories in no way detract from the gameplay simply by existing.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'd argue that the majority of games that try to be story first and foremost have largely fallen on their faces though. There's the classic Gone Home and Machine for Pigs examples, as well as the more recent Sunset of pretentiousness and Life is Strange-ly inept and inconsistent in-universe rules.

I mean, just because games are recognized as art doesn't mean that they all need to ascribe to become something "greater" as a collective whole. Hell, part of what made gaming recognized was the uniqueness of the medium and gameplay was at the center of that, not the lack of ludonarrative dissonance. And I don't understand why it's that much of a sin that gameplay and story don't perfectly matchup in this instance. It's a competitive shooter, who gives a crap? The world is supposed to be much different from the game for a reason, mainly so that there's a game to begin with and not just a series of animated shorts(which I'm getting the distinct feeling is the only thing people really want when it comes to the gameworld).

First off, I totally agree with your point that not all games need to be obvious attempts at "artsy", just because we recognize that game as a whole are art. This is no different, to me, from saying that paintings are art, but a Monet or Cezanne are obviously more art-like than a two year olds finger paintings.

But who gives a crap about Overwatch's backstory? Blizzard, obviously. They care enough that they wholesale adopted Valve's marketing of TF2, by giving each character their own short movie showing them off. The difference is that TF2 went for zany from the start, we are not given some deep, rich backstory on the Scout's growing up, he simply brags about how hardcore he is and that if you where from, where he was from, you'd be fucking dead. Blizzard goes for the backstories however. It goes for evoking emotions and concepts other than "this is hilarious" and "this character is badass killer".

Blizzard markets Overwatch on the back of these character pieces. Blizzard makes a huge deal about the fact that all their characters have their own stories, personalities and outlooks on Overwatch and its' struggles. That's what makes the entire thing so jarring, because we are told that Bastion is really a borderline-pacifist who wants to be left alone to contemplate, but in game you are likely to see him mow five people down before tea bagging a corpse and taunting the dead. Taken on its' own either of those situations are fine (the reclusive, pacifist robot or the HK-47 wannabe), but not when they are meant to represent the same character.

This is not a criticism of Overwatch's gameplay or the merits of Overwatch as a game, as you seem to think. It is a criticism of the inability to design characters suitable for the gameplay intended for the game. TF2 realized what kind of game it was and designed characters that were all zany, homicidal maniacs to suit the mood of the game. Overwatch on the other hand has designed several characters that stand at direct odds with how they act in the game. Had Overwatch's design team had a better grasp of the games gameplay, they would have either gone the route of TF2 (exaggerated psychopathy), R6: Siege (everyone's a soldier doing their job) or found a way where every character is obviously vested in Overwatch's struggle, instead of making one of the top killers in the game a reclusive pacifist.

 

[Zhukov]

*shrug*

I see Overwatch not as a game that squanders a story on meaningless arena combat but game focussed on meaningless arena combat that has a silly story half attached, probably for marketing purposes.

Kinda seems like an odd jumping off point for the ludunarrative dissonance and why-can't-games-do-more points. I am sympathetic to those arguments but Overwatch clearly has no interest in doing that.

It's like lamenting the lack of historical drama movies while watching Sausage Party.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

*shrug*

I see Overwatch not as a game that squanders a story on meaningless arena combat but game focussed on meaningless arena combat that has a silly story half attached, probably for marketing purposes.

Kinda seems like an odd jumping off point for the ludunarrative dissonance and why-can't-games-do-more points. I am sympathetic to those arguments but Overwatch clearly has no interest in doing that.

It's like lamenting the lack of historical drama movies while watching Sausage Party.

I just see it as a game that was clearly made and marketed to today's current internet culture.

 

[Erttheking]

*shrug*

I see Overwatch not as a game that squanders a story on meaningless arena combat but game focussed on meaningless arena combat that has a silly story half attached, probably for marketing purposes.

Kinda seems like an odd jumping off point for the ludunarrative dissonance and why-can't-games-do-more points. I am sympathetic to those arguments but Overwatch clearly has no interest in doing that.

It's like lamenting the lack of historical drama movies while watching Sausage Party.

Personally I find Overwatch having no interest in doing that to be exactly why it's a good jumping off point, particularly given the sheer amount of shorts and comics dedicated to showing that their characters aren't just shallow cut outs.

Just makes it all the more frustrating.

 

[Zhukov]

*shrug*

I see Overwatch not as a game that squanders a story on meaningless arena combat but game focussed on meaningless arena combat that has a silly story half attached, probably for marketing purposes.

Kinda seems like an odd jumping off point for the ludunarrative dissonance and why-can't-games-do-more points. I am sympathetic to those arguments but Overwatch clearly has no interest in doing that.

It's like lamenting the lack of historical drama movies while watching Sausage Party.

Personally I find Overwatch having no interest in doing that to be exactly why it's a good jumping off point, particularly given the sheer amount of shorts and comics dedicated to showing that their characters aren't just shallow cut outs.

Just makes it all the more frustrating.

Umm... except their characters are shallow cut outs.

Which is fine, that's all they need to be for the game's purposes.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

If you think that I'm not going to argue it, I'm just saying that they're clearly trying to make the characters more than shallow cut outs.

 

[Redryhno]

I'd argue that the majority of games that try to be story first and foremost have largely fallen on their faces though. There's the classic Gone Home and Machine for Pigs examples, as well as the more recent Sunset of pretentiousness and Life is Strange-ly inept and inconsistent in-universe rules.

I mean, just because games are recognized as art doesn't mean that they all need to ascribe to become something "greater" as a collective whole. Hell, part of what made gaming recognized was the uniqueness of the medium and gameplay was at the center of that, not the lack of ludonarrative dissonance. And I don't understand why it's that much of a sin that gameplay and story don't perfectly matchup in this instance. It's a competitive shooter, who gives a crap? The world is supposed to be much different from the game for a reason, mainly so that there's a game to begin with and not just a series of animated shorts(which I'm getting the distinct feeling is the only thing people really want when it comes to the gameworld).

First off, I totally agree with your point that not all games need to be obvious attempts at "artsy", just because we recognize that game as a whole are art. This is no different, to me, from saying that paintings are art, but a Monet or Cezanne are obviously more art-like than a two year olds finger paintings.

But who gives a crap about Overwatch's backstory? Blizzard, obviously. They care enough that they wholesale adopted Valve's marketing of TF2, by giving each character their own short movie showing them off. The difference is that TF2 went for zany from the start, we are not given some deep, rich backstory on the Scout's growing up, he simply brags about how hardcore he is and that if you where from, where he was from, you'd be fucking dead. Blizzard goes for the backstories however. It goes for evoking emotions and concepts other than "this is hilarious" and "this character is badass killer".

Blizzard markets Overwatch on the back of these character pieces. Blizzard makes a huge deal about the fact that all their characters have their own stories, personalities and outlooks on Overwatch and its' struggles. That's what makes the entire thing so jarring, because we are told that Bastion is really a borderline-pacifist who wants to be left alone to contemplate, but in game you are likely to see him mow five people down before tea bagging a corpse and taunting the dead. Taken on its' own either of those situations are fine (the reclusive, pacifist robot or the HK-47 wannabe), but not when they are meant to represent the same character.

This is not a criticism of Overwatch's gameplay or the merits of Overwatch as a game, as you seem to think. It is a criticism of the inability to design characters suitable for the gameplay intended for the game. TF2 realized what kind of game it was and designed characters that were all zany, homicidal maniacs to suit the mood of the game. Overwatch on the other hand has designed several characters that stand at direct odds with how they act in the game. Had Overwatch's design team had a better grasp of the games gameplay, they would have either gone the route of TF2 (exaggerated psychopathy), R6: Siege (everyone's a soldier doing their job) or found a way where every character is obviously vested in Overwatch's struggle, instead of making one of the top killers in the game a reclusive pacifist.

So basically you're complaining that people in-game don't roleplay? Because Blizz doesn't really have the power to make everyone behave in the way that their characters are supposed to. I mean, if they did, there largely wouldn't be a game.

And how can you be so sure that the animation/writing team would've changed up their stories if they'd known about gameplay? Blizz is alot of things, but uncommunicative with their in-house projects and personnel isn't one of them. I'm honestly just going to go with them just being marketing. Not to mention the damn game's a bunch of unused assets and lore, I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing.