|
Hello all, I recently started a new blog here: http://gamervsgames.wordpress.com/ and would like to share my first post with you. It's a blog about my thoughts on game design and gaming in general as I attempt to play through my massive backlog or muse on games that I've played. I hope you enjoy it.
There is a distinct difference in gaming between watching something happen and playing it out. Often times, we get frustrated as players because the developers choose to put something in a cutscene that we would have liked to experience, like a climactic fight. That's why we play games in the first place, to interact with the story as opposed to just watching it take place. A lot of times they try to cover this up with quicktime events, which ends up being just as annoying because you know that it's an illusion of interactivity as opposed to actually doing something. Press A to dismantle a bomb, throw it out the window, jump into a car and drive away. Exciting.
On the other hand, there are plenty of games that fantastically involve the player in major set pieces without taking away from the cinematography or grand scale of what's happening. One of my favorite examples of this is Metal Gear Solid 4, one of my favorite overall games. While there are plenty of long cutscenes and videos, there's also plenty of bits that really involve you and make you feel like you're doing something amazing, even more so than your other feats in the game. The best and most memorable of which are the fight scene between REX and RAY, the hallway scene (which I'll try not to spoil), and the final fight sequence. All of these give you full or near full control of your character, not just limiting you to quicktime buttons or making you watch. And because of that, you really feel the gravity and awesomeness (in the traditional sense of the word) with each action you take.
Regarding the title, I've been playing through Telltale Games' The Walking Dead. This game is great, let me start by saying. But aside from the story, one of the things they do so well is making you act out nearly everything. There are very few cutscenes where you just sit and watch, in almost everything that happens, you are directly impacting how Lee (our protagonist) acts. This leads to frenzied moments where zombies are walking towards you in your peripheral vision while you try to unlock a door by grabbing the key, put it in a lock, yank the door open, walk through, and pull it shut - all of which are separate actions that you have to manually perform, adding to your involvement and connection to the scene.
I'm only in the middle of Act 3 (no spoilers please), but there is a moment that I've come across that really made me realize just how powerful this can be. Somewhat spoilers ahead, though I'll leave out any details.
---
When a survivor in your group gets bit (and I'll not say which one for spoiler sake), you can volunteer to put them out of their misery. And with zombie bites, there's only one way to do that. Rather than just showing Lee shooting the person, or zooming out and having a gunshot sound, they actually make you point the gun at the person's head (with text saying "Shoot ___") and make you give the command to pull the trigger.
Think about it. How different would that have been from a player's perspective if you just watched it happen or it was just implied? It has all this power and emotion behind it because they literally make you pull the trigger yourself. You're not just making a choice, you're taking an action. I physically had to stop playing and just sit for a couple seconds afterwards.
This is what games should strive for. You have the ability to involve the player in ways that a movie or book can't, by making them part of the scene rather than just a passive observer. In literature, there's a clear difference between showing the reader what is happening through actions and emotions, rather than just telling them through a 5 page infodump. Taking it a step further, now you're not just showing the reader (or in the case of games, player) the impact of what's happening, you're making them part of it and emotionally attaching them to the scene.
This is why I play games and identify myself as a gamer, honestly, and The Walking Dead is quickly becoming one of my favorite games of recent memory.
I'll likely be doing one a day or so for a while, as it is with new blogs, but I hope that I can keep this a consistent thing. Let me know what you think.
 
|
United States15536 Posts
Awesome thoughts. I've been considering playing this a lot myself, but I've gotta do Bioshock Infinite and Fire Emblem: Awakening (among many, MANY others) first. It's been getting so much press and recognition (I believe it was a big winner at the GDC awards show along with Journey) that it's definitely hard to ignore, particularly from a "quality narrative in games" perspective.
Looking forward to more.
also you should check out my blog too because I like covering the same kinds of stuff you seem to =P
|
Lol Asmo, I have indeed checked your blog out.
If you don't like traditional adventure games (point and click, find items to solve puzzles, dialogue over action), then it might be a bit hard to get through, but the story and choices are phenomenal.
|
While Walking Dead and I have some disagreements, I can say that the game excels at presenting an illusion of choice.
|
I find it very odd that you would highlight player agency as the best aspect of a game which was essentially an interactive movie with slightly more complex QTEs. I get your point but I just think your examples are pretty strange; maybe Amnesia would be a better one, or even a game like Arma3.
As for the post as a whole, the second (and shorter) part of it was the only really interesting part because it went beyond what appeared to me to be a review of somesort (or a mere affirmation of player agency/interactivity), so maybe you could elaborate a bit more to lengthen it out or go even one step further: You could even point out how player agency taken to an extreme would result in simulator games like the various flight ones that we have. And then there's the whole tension between agency and linearity that you could pick up on, i.e. when there is a clear disconnection between your character's actions that you have to perform in order to progress and your emotional involvment as a player - which was beautifully examined in Bioshock1. There's plenty interesting stuff to select from here; don't constrain yourself to writing something that is more akin to a review than anything else.
|
United States15536 Posts
On April 10 2013 01:03 Requizen wrote:
Lol Asmo, I have indeed checked your blog out.
If you don't like traditional adventure games (point and click, find items to solve puzzles, dialogue over action), then it might be a bit hard to get through, but the story and choices are phenomenal.
Sorry, had to momentarily whore myself.
I think I'll love the game: very few genres turn me off, and my interest in dynamic narratives ensures that adventure is not one of them. I mean, I was really bad at Sam & Max and Day of the Tentacle when I was 9, but that has to have changed... right? (RIP LucasArts... pour one out for your homies)
|
On April 10 2013 01:42 Sauwelios wrote:
I find it very odd that you would highlight player agency as the best aspect of a game which was essentially an interactive movie with slightly more complex QTEs. I get your point but I just think your examples are pretty strange; maybe Amnesia would be a better one, or even a game like Arma3.
As for the post as a whole, the second (and shorter) part of it was the only really interesting part because it went beyond what appeared to me to be a review of somesort (or a mere affirmation of player agency/interactivity), so maybe you could elaborate a bit more to lengthen it out or go even one step further: You could even point out how player agency taken to an extreme would result in simulator games like the various flight ones that we have. And then there's the whole tension between agency and linearity that you could pick up on, i.e. when there is a clear disconnection between your character's actions that you have to perform in order to progress and your emotional involvment as a player - which was beautifully examined in Bioshock1. There's plenty interesting stuff to select from here; don't constrain yourself to writing something that is more akin to a review than anything else.
There are plenty of probably better examples regarding player agency vs cutscenes, it's just that I have been playing TWD so that was what was on the forefront of my mind.
Mostly I was trying to highlight the difference between acting and viewing. The scene I mention would not have been nearly as moving if you just chose "I'll do it" and watched it unfold. While the action and gameplay in TWD does, as you say, basically boil down to QTEs, it is the way that they are used that makes them more interesting and involving. It's not "Press Spacebar to save Clem", it's forcing you to perform several actions while the music is building, zombies are moaning, and the camera is slightly shivering that gives it that grip. That step by step process, while it is an illusion of choice, is far more interesting than many other versions of it.
Another game that does it fantastically is the final sequence of Bastion. If you haven't played it, I'll not ruin it, but if you have you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The final choice you make is one that you act out, that you experience. And while you have little control over what you can actually do (mostly just move), it ends up being something completely above a cutscene or pre-rendered cinematic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
