Show Posts
21
Adventure Related Talk & Chat / Mechanics vs Narrative
« on: 25 Jun 2013, 15:18 »
Sorta stemming from the thread about adventure games that came up recently, I started thinking again (have I done this before? 
) about the mechanics in adventure (and other sorts) of games, and how they're quite often at odds with the narrative, something that really shouldn't be happening. One of the incredible things about games as a medium is the inclusion of INTERACTION to all the other story-telling tools. The idea of having the participants involved in the story by actually acting it out is a great thing for immersing the player into the game's atmosphere, the characters, and make the plot feel more meaningful to them. But if that interaction actually takes away from the story, it is kind of broken, then, isn't it?
Just to make sure we're on the same page:
Trapping a cat to get its hair to make a disguise moustache to pass off as someone else breaks the immersion for me.
Chasing and repeatedly whipping a rodent to direct it into becoming bait to clear a forest path breaks the immersion for me.
Having to extract numbers from a vague poem found nearby to enter a passcode to get through a door breaks the immersion for me.
Getting into a "race against time" with a wet towel to sprinkle it on some clay to harden a mould to get through a door breaks the immersion for me.
Having to connect one name with a totally different unconnected name in your "memory inventory" just so you are able to realise that you can use it as a unisex name to get by someone...that breaks the immersion for me.
(and to give a non-adventure example) Acquiring 10 kraad rabbit skulls to give to a local sorceress so that she'll help you further in your quest to save the land breaks the immersion for me.
Now in and of themselves, these little situations might be funny to me, or I might be happy that I was able to solve them in such a "neat" manner, but how do they work overall towards the narrative the game is trying to weave?
These sort of absurd situations might work in an absurd game, like Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island. They were full of absurd situations, and it fit right in to find absurd solutions to those problems. But then what about more serious (or at least non-solely-comedic) games? Do such mechanics make sense in games involving shadowy conspiracies, Freemasons, Templars, the occult, etc.? One would imagine that maybe once or twice you may come across a situation that would benefit the story and game from an absurd solution, and the story may be better off for that, but the examples I gave aren't unique or one-off situations. Those entire games are set up like that.
Or is such stuff simple accepted as part of the genre and ignored as such (like I wouldn't complain that no one approaches me from and I can't fire towards the side in a 2D platforming game)? I'll admit, I had less problems with such games when I played them originally..I don't know if that has changed because I'm older now, or maybe because the potential for story-telling has increased or what.
Any suggestions of some non-solely-comedic games that bucked this trend? I suppose some of the more dialogue-focused games would count among them...
Or more importantly, any suggestions on how to overcome this problem?
I realise "design better stories" would be the overall answer, but it is a bit vague to be helpful. My general method of creating puzzles is as explained by Rodekill's tutorial (incorporated here). I write out the story as a series of obstacles, and then fill in the plot as the solution to those obstacles (as well as the gameplay in terms of solving puzzles). If the obstacle or the solution is too simple, that puzzle becomes less meaningful as a form of gameplay, but if the solution is too convoluted, then you get into the possibility of the silliness of it all breaking the immersion for the player.
So how should it work?
) about the mechanics in adventure (and other sorts) of games, and how they're quite often at odds with the narrative, something that really shouldn't be happening. One of the incredible things about games as a medium is the inclusion of INTERACTION to all the other story-telling tools. The idea of having the participants involved in the story by actually acting it out is a great thing for immersing the player into the game's atmosphere, the characters, and make the plot feel more meaningful to them. But if that interaction actually takes away from the story, it is kind of broken, then, isn't it?Just to make sure we're on the same page:
Trapping a cat to get its hair to make a disguise moustache to pass off as someone else breaks the immersion for me.
Chasing and repeatedly whipping a rodent to direct it into becoming bait to clear a forest path breaks the immersion for me.
Having to extract numbers from a vague poem found nearby to enter a passcode to get through a door breaks the immersion for me.
Getting into a "race against time" with a wet towel to sprinkle it on some clay to harden a mould to get through a door breaks the immersion for me.
Having to connect one name with a totally different unconnected name in your "memory inventory" just so you are able to realise that you can use it as a unisex name to get by someone...that breaks the immersion for me.
(and to give a non-adventure example) Acquiring 10 kraad rabbit skulls to give to a local sorceress so that she'll help you further in your quest to save the land breaks the immersion for me.
Now in and of themselves, these little situations might be funny to me, or I might be happy that I was able to solve them in such a "neat" manner, but how do they work overall towards the narrative the game is trying to weave?
These sort of absurd situations might work in an absurd game, like Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island. They were full of absurd situations, and it fit right in to find absurd solutions to those problems. But then what about more serious (or at least non-solely-comedic) games? Do such mechanics make sense in games involving shadowy conspiracies, Freemasons, Templars, the occult, etc.? One would imagine that maybe once or twice you may come across a situation that would benefit the story and game from an absurd solution, and the story may be better off for that, but the examples I gave aren't unique or one-off situations. Those entire games are set up like that.
Or is such stuff simple accepted as part of the genre and ignored as such (like I wouldn't complain that no one approaches me from and I can't fire towards the side in a 2D platforming game)? I'll admit, I had less problems with such games when I played them originally..I don't know if that has changed because I'm older now, or maybe because the potential for story-telling has increased or what.
Any suggestions of some non-solely-comedic games that bucked this trend? I suppose some of the more dialogue-focused games would count among them...
Or more importantly, any suggestions on how to overcome this problem?
I realise "design better stories" would be the overall answer, but it is a bit vague to be helpful
. My general method of creating puzzles is as explained by Rodekill's tutorial (incorporated here). I write out the story as a series of obstacles, and then fill in the plot as the solution to those obstacles (as well as the gameplay in terms of solving puzzles). If the obstacle or the solution is too simple, that puzzle becomes less meaningful as a form of gameplay, but if the solution is too convoluted, then you get into the possibility of the silliness of it all breaking the immersion for the player.So how should it work?
? The money being showered on you? Do you have some inner mission driving you to tell some specific story? Do you simply invent challenges for yourself and enjoy puzzle solving? Do you have some inner mission involving advancing video gaming as a medium? I've heard people say they enjoy making games they'd like to play. Is it about enjoying exercising your creativity? Why choose video games for that? Perhaps it is a quirk of the sort of adventure games we make here, but while I certainly try my best to make games I wouldn't hate, aside from bug testing or checking something, I have to admit, I don't much care to play through my own games.
). 
. Also, while Smith may be slightly wider, he still seems to have much more detail packed into him than my own fellow. I tried adding a one more 'highlight' colour to my man's coat, but that made him look like some sort of cut-out square box-man.