Should games be more like books or more like science labs?

[Racecarlock]

Of course, I think there could one day be a perfect fusion. Maybe there already have been perfect fusions.

I guess I should ask the question fist. Should a game be more like a book, with linear storytelling yet epic quests, battles, and so forth? Or, should it be more like a science lab. A place where you can experiment with physics, chemistry, and other science stuff?

I've been told the mass effect series tells a pretty good story up until the ending, and PC gamers, does this sound familiar? Spawning 2 armies of opposing sides on 2 sides of a map, then watching the ensuing mega riot. That's pretty great too, right?

In the end, I do like the science lab approach more, since after the story I can still perform mad scientist style experiments, of which there are an infinite number if you're creative, essentially making the game eternal.

Spoiler

On the other hand, skyrim let me travel through time and space to valhalla to kill an evil soul eating dragon.

That's also pretty awesome.

Wing Commander Privateer Remake gets the best of both worlds by letting me write my own story and still giving me the ability to save on any planet so I could respawn there if I decide to see what would happen if I took on every faction in the system at the moment. It's sort of like a science lab with a journal or a typewriter in it.

But then there's also games like portal which combines the book and the science lab pretty well. It gives you a gun that's fun to experiment with and lots of large rooms that allow for such experimentation provided you don't mind sacrificing a time record or something, yet the story provided by the environment and the villain is also pretty great.

In the end, I think that the book and the science lab should combine to make an overall better experience.

I mean, look at what they're like separately. Garry's mod is an epic physics tool, but has no story. Heavy Rain has somewhat of a story (A combination of saw, CSI, and taken I guess), but doesn't have much experimentation to do other than changing some choices, and even then that's not really for more fun, it's just to make you play through the game again with different choices to see a different ending.

But that's just what I think. How do you guys feel?

 

[Operation Genesis]

Well, I prefer a more story driven game, so I'd prefer more like a book. I don't really have the imagination to really enjoy myself in the more free-form games, like Minecraft or Terraria.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well, it depends on the game. Half Life 2 was completely linear, but still had the gravity gun, which allowed for quite a bit of experimentation. I don't think it has to be one or the other. I would go so far as to say that it very rarely IS one way or the other. You say we could "one day have a perfect fusion of both" but I think it's not really that far from what we have now.

EDIT: Oh right, the actual question. Yeah, I don't think games "should" be one or the other, as neither style is inherently better. It just depends on what kind of game the developers are trying to make. Both can be fantastic.

 

[Risingblade]

I'd rather games be more like games...

 

[Evil Moo]

In short the answer is probably 'Yes'. Both have their place, both are very good entertainment if done well. They may not necessarily go that well together all the time, but they are certainly important elements in any game.

 

[Zhukov]

Surely it doesn't have to be a matter of either/or. There's room for games like Uncharted to exist right next to Minecraft.

My personal preference leans toward the "book" end of the scale. I like me some good story telling and interesting characters I can get invested in. For reasons I don't entirely understand, those things never seem to exist in "science lab" games.

I'd like to see more Deus Ex style design, where the levels take place one after the other in linear order, but each level allows for some exploration and divergence.

 

[Stemer]

I'm going to go with the science labs.
Personally I've found the stories that create themselves in strategy games like Civ4 or anything paradox has ever made to be far more engaging than the distinctly average stories of most games.
All of this controversy about ME3 has gone largely over my head, as I never found the series engaging to begin with. Sure it has a good plot and universe by video game standards, but by the standards of most other mediums it was just kinda average, and if I wanted that kind of thing I could just go watch Firefly or read an Arthur C Clarke book.
One of my fondest memories of fallout 3 was sneaking across the wasteland while on critically low health, but I found all of the main quest to be rather dull and poorly written.

 

[loc978]

I guess I should ask the question fist.

The Question Fist shall formulate an answer!

[sub][sub]Couldn't help myself, that was too much accidental awesome to ignore.[/sub][/sub]​

Should a game be more like a book, with linear storytelling yet epic quests, battles, and so forth? Or, should it be more like a science lab. A place where you can experiment with physics, chemistry, and other science stuff?

In the end, I think that the book and the science lab should combine to make an overall better experience.

But that's just what I think. How do you guys feel?

There is no wrong answer here, sayeth the Question Fist. Some may prefer an open-ended game that allows for experimentation with no overarching plot at all, some may prefer to watch a game's story unfold with no options for experimentation at all. More likely, someone will prefer something in the middle. Your examples of Portal 2 and Garry's mod were stellar.
However, there may be some people who enjoy both, but prefer not to mix the two. People who love games such as Minecraft on one end or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare on the other, but who hate anything in the middle.

As for the man behind the Question Fist... he prefers it somewhere in the middle. Doesn't like Minecraft, doesn't like the Call of Duty games... but loves experimenting and building in sandbox games. New Vegas G.E.C.K. is his Minecraft, the Batman: Arkham games are his Call of Duty.

...

As an aside... this solve media thing is just silly. Assuming they get the same randomized questions I do, a bot could get through it about 50% of the time by entering face the music. I do believe that is a fail.
Captcha may have been a bit more difficult to decode, but at least it was for a good cause. digitizing books for preservation is never a bad thing.

 

[xplosive59]

There is an argument for both sides of the argument, Metal Gear Solid in my oppinion would have been ruined if the player had choice in the story whereas the story in Mass Effect or Tactics Ogre are awesome even with all the different choices, making them better even.

In terms of gameplay though if you are not given "The Science Lab approach" then the game feels hollow, you should be able to experiment with concepts even in the most linear games eg "should I use this Assualt Rifle and charge in or stealthily snipe the dudes from afar" its not a massive ammount of experimentation but its enough.

Captcha: Make a bee-line, where am I gonna get bees at such a short notice? And even still organising them into a line will take a skill that I do not have!

 

[Wuffykins]

I think they should be both and everything in between. I'm talking about the gaming genre as a whole btw, not on an individual basis. Some games should be completely linear and tell a tightly focused & well polished story, while others should be open ended sandboxes that should let you do whatever you want, story and logic be damned. Both styles work simply because there are people who like games like that.

Hell, take a look at the game collection on my shelf and you'll see it dominated by two opposing genres: 60+ hour RPGs of both the Western & Japanese variety, and bullet hell shooters that can technically be beaten in 30-45 minutes (not from personal experience). One style is great for the long haul, giving a wonderful experience over a building amount of time and choices made, while the second has simply given me the most intense and exhilirating gameplay moments even though I only play in 30 minute sessions or so. Most importantly, both are simply fun as shit and are completely fine as they are.

Granted, I'm sure I just went off on a tangent that you weren't intending on discussing OP, I guess my point is that there really shouldn't be a singular ideal point in the Book vs. Lab style, both ends of the spectrum have examples that have proven to have worked (and others that have completely failed), as does every point in between the two.

 

[Esotera]

Most games are going in the direction of both, slowly but surely. Assassins Creed shows this pretty well...there's always been a solid main quest & a large city to explore, but over each iteration the option to do things totally unrelated has been added to the point where you can spend the majority of your time doing that. Having a game where you can just wander off & do whatever the hell you like but feel like you're having a good time is a rare thing...more games are achieving this.

That said, there's nothing wrong with a game driven entirely by story, and sometimes they work better.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

How about game stop trying so hard to deftly imitate other mediums and instead focus on establishing their own identity?

 

[Zen Toombs]

Hmm, interesting question. I thin...

Hey guys, I do actually want to discuss this. Shut up about the damn ME3 ending for 5 seconds and let's talk about this.

Wow, chill out. I was planning a decent size response to this post, but you managed to turn me off of putting in the effort.

 

[Racecarlock]

Hmm, interesting question. I thin...

Hey guys, I do actually want to discuss this. Shut up about the damn ME3 ending for 5 seconds and let's talk about this.

Wow, chill out. I was planning a decent size response to this post, but you managed to turn me off of putting in the effort.

Sorry. It's just that all of the complaining and arguments could be in just one thread. But no. Since there are a million of these things, my topic got pushed to second page almost immediately. All I want to do is discuss something other than the ME3 ending especially since I only played ME1. But since there are so many of those damn ending topics, I had to bump my thing or it probably would have been completely forgotten as a discussion.

 

[TehCookie]

I like having both so I can enjoy the differences they bring to the table. If I had to pick one I'd go with books since I'm more tolerant of a cliche story with a slight spin than repetitive gameplay with a slight spin. Still I prefer to mix it up.