The Importance Of Setting

Whenever I play a game I don't generally put too much thought into why I am in a specific setting, I just accept what the game is telling me and move on. It wasn't until very recently that I started noticing a trend in my habits regarding games that somehow, for reasons I couldn't quite explain, didn't appeal to me. Before I go further I realize that the use of 'setting' instead of 'art design' will in some examples seem like the wrong thing to point at, but keep reading and I am sure you'll see what I'm getting at.

When Bioshock was first announced years ago I remember looking at that game and being instantly disinterested in the game. Even when it was released to high praise, I remember thinking people must be crazy. I didn't see what everyone was talking about. I remember making visual comparisons to World of Warcraft but with art deco sensibilities. And what was stranger still, I love art deco. But one dull day I went to the store and bought it because I had nothing else to buy at the time. And to my lack of surprise, I actually didn't care for the game. But I don't recall thinking the gameplay was bad, just not engaging or a reason to continue. All I remember was a constant feeling of just not wanting to be in that world. I chalked it up to boredom, but lately I wonder if it was something else entirely.

A year after Bioshock one of the visually striking new games was Far Cry 2. I like shooters and this one looked like a very nice version of that. Also, that fire tech. I remember tinking the game was very visually impressive, the weird trajectory of your RPG as it flew toward your target making a huge firey explosion. I remember questionable AI and enemies with binoculars for eyes. Eventually though, I put it on the shelf never to return. I just didn't feel the need to continue. Sure, the story itself never grabbed me, but there was more to it.

Eventually Far Cry 3 came out and having already put Far Cry 2 unfinished on my shelves, I wasn't sure if it was worth spending the money on what seemed to be a very similar game. But, much like a lot of my poor financial choices, curiosity won. And unsurprisingly, that game got even less play time than Far Cry 2. So I figured, Far Cry just isn't for me.

A previous blog of mine talked about giving franchises (in that case, Bioshock) a second chance. In that blog I explained how much I loved Bioshock: Infinite while having disliked and disregarded Bioshock as a franchise up until that point. One of the reasons I really liked Infinite was it's setting. Columbia was a beautiful place (despite it's horrible treatment of it's inhabitants), I describe it as some form of fever dream. But while that was all true, the aesthetic difference wasn't that big from Bioshock. It was brigher colors, sure, but you can tell they are in the same universe.

Which brings me to last night.

I downloaded the Far Cry 4 co-op demo and spent about 2 hours wreacking havoc in Kyrat with my brother who owns the game. Much like the previous games in the Far Cry universe this played very similarly and I could tell I was in the same type of universe. But Kyrat is something else compared to the archipelago of Far Cry 2 or the dusty jungle of Far Cry 2. It's a place I haven't quite seen before, with mountain peaks streatching the horizon. When the time limit was over I wished I could just jump back in and continue. There was this similar sense of playing Bioshock: Infinite and really enjoying the world. The fun I had in those two hours, I haven't had in any Far Cry game to date.

Which I suppose brings me to one single argument against my whole theory. Namely the co-op portion of Far Cry 4. It could potentially be that my enjoyment of playing it co-op completely colors my perception of the game and my thoughts on setting being just a happy accident. But I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I am open to that possibility. But since I've had as much fun as I did, I'll get the game and find out for myself if my theory is solid.

As a side note, when I added some pictures to this text I realized my two examples go from dark/brown to light/blue, so to speak. But that's entirely accidental. I have played plenty of brown shooters to not actually actively dislike that color choice or dusty settings.

The thing I like most about Skyrim is its setting.

I think about this occasionally. Mordor brought the discussion to the forefront this year, since the lack of environmental variety turned a lot of people off from the game.

For me, there's a section in Darksiders II where everything is dry and dead and unappealing. It honestly made me stop playing, despite my love for the original Darksiders.

What's interesting to me is that even though I love Devil May Cry 3, the first thing I think about is the drab setting. Just stone and gray and nothing too engaging for a huge chunk of it. I'd play that game more these days, but I always end up thinking about the crappy setting and losing the motivation.

@believer258: I loved Skyrim's setting. Sometimes when I played that game I would just "take a walk" and not actually do anything other than explore the world.

@csl316: Yeah, I am one those people that haven't given Mordor a chance due to it's environment. But there was also the fact that since the setting doesn't appeal to me, the things that people cite as less stellar (story, for one) and things I've seen before (combat, traversal etc.) isn't enough to get me to give it a chance. But I think that game is an interesting piece in regards to one strength (nemesis system) carrying lesser parts. I am curious if the people that really like Mordor would do so without the nemesis system. But I digress.

That Darksiders II reminds me of when I was younger and played more JRPGs, I always hated when it all of a sudden decided you needed to walk through boring lifeless caves. Granted, it usually didn't help that those were often made as mazes and anytime you ran the wrong way you realized you had to run back and enjoy all those random encounters all over again.

@csl316: Honestly I have the opposite opinion on Devil May Cry 3's setting, though part of that is for plot-related reasons. The Temen-Ni-Gru, a tower built by crazy cultists back in a day when demons all but ruled the Earth, and a portal straight to Hell just erupting in the middle of a reasonably modern city, followed by monsters swarming the streets. You fight your way inside and it's all archways and gothic statuary and such combined with weird machinery, giant gears, even built-in waterways. Then halfway through there's a turn when the tower gets 'activated', and all of a sudden it's brightly lit, there are Tron-esque lines shooting throughout, and it takes on a decidedly magical Sci-fi aesthetic. That's not counting a level or so spent in the belly of a massive flying demon whale, platforming your way past digestive juices and fighting demons composed partially of intestinal tract.

So, I dunno, I'm a big fan of the setting of DMC3. It's always stuck out to me as a really cool area. Also the name is fun to say: Temen-Ni-Gru!

Man, I think the Kingdom of the Dead in Darksiders II was my favorite area. And I like the others a lot, but Far Cry 2 still has my favorite setting in the series... it just made sense to be a mercenary in central Africa, you know?

Do you think it's more a subjective dislike for the aesthetic and the geometry of these settings? Or, for lack of a better word, their failure to immerse you into those worlds? With Far Cry 2 I was quite impressed with its dedication to the first person perspective. The minimalist HUD elements and the lack of generic game mechanics like fast travel, helped me feel like I was truly a part of that world. With the sequel, although I enjoyed it for other reasons, I never once felt like I wasn't playing a video game. The HUD was covered in information and tutorials, and much of the content in the game was the boilerplate side content we have came to expect from Ubisoft. I had similar feelings over Shadow of Mordor, and while I did enjoy that also, I felt somewhat detached from the settings of both of those games. It felt less like a living world, and more like an artificial environment for me to explore.

As others have mentioned, Skyrim also has an excellent setting. Whenever playing that game I go out of my way to avoid fast travel. I install mods that force me to eat and sleep at appropriate times. Not because I want the game to be realistic, but because it helps further the illusion that this more than a set of textures stuck to virtual geometry.

I expected this to be a volleyball thread...

I'm playing through the new Wolfenstein right now and I really like the setting in it. Adds a ton in terms of atmosphere... Skyrim always impressed me too.

Yeah, the new Wolfenstein is a great example.

I read this thread twice to try and figure out what point OP was trying to make. The thread is named the importance of setting and I gathered from it that you enjoy some game worlds but not others and you cant determine why. Maybe its not the setting at all, who knows.

Setting and art design is huge to my enjoyment of a game, and it has been for a very long time. One of the most unnoticed, but important aspects of building or recommending a game.

Setting may be one of the biggest reasons I play games, I love exploring worlds.

That's one reason why for me Red Dead Redemption is the best Rockstar game yet made. The Old West has never felt so alive and vibrant.

As cool as Vice City, San Andreas etc are I can go to the places those are facsimiles now, that's not true of the Old West or 1950's LA (LA Noire)

Yup, I also tend to put setting over most other aspects of a game (along with music, which can also make me enjoy just about anything). I can ignore a whole lot of shortcomings if I enjoy it's setting. E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy was kinda an example of that. The UI is incredibly poor and the gameplay isn't great by any means, but the weird Blade Runner meets Warhammer 40k setting kinda put me in awe, and I immensely enjoyed exploring the levels and the weird hub town you returned to inbetween missions. I guess I had a similar experience with the Souls games. I don't like the third person perspective, and while I can appreciate what those games do with their mechanics, what really got me into those games were these beautifully sombre worlds.

I spent over 200 hours in Skyrim barely touching the main story line, just wandering between the towns. I still haven't finished that story, and have no interest in doing so, but I still occasionally boot it up just to walk the road from Riverwood to Whiterun, or talk a walk through the surroundings of Winterhold.

I still buy every game set in a Gibson-esque cyberpunk setting, because I just love that setting so much, regardless of how the games themselves turn out.

First of all, thanks for all the interesting replies and comments, much appreciated!

@sunbrozak: That's actually a very interesting question. In part it's probably a subjective dislike of aspects of a certain setting. For example, what I've seen of Shadow of Mordor (and me talking about a game I haven't played is a thin rope to tread, I know, but I've watched plenty of video on it) turns me away from the game because the world looks artificial. It doesn't appear as though the world is shaped by natural causes and the structures that appear to be in the game appear to be placed in areas they have no place existing in by looking at what surrounds it (unless it's in some form of base). They are landscape decoration for the sake of landscape decoration. Or they are function for the sake of function. Basically, it comes down to just looking like a video game.

But a different fantasy setting like Dragon Age: Inquisition manages to create a ton of different open maps that feels shaped naturally. I even enjoyed the more gray bleak places in Dragon Age because the setting still felt like a place shaped over time. It didn't feel like hand crafted levels I needed to beat. But I admit it's an unfair comparison, considering my lack of first hand time with Mordor.

Your point about a game failing to immerse me is also worth considering. What they did in regards to lack of HUD in Far Cry 2 was great and I wish more games did that to a certain extent. I have asked for something similar in AC games for a while since they are some of my favorite settings but a lot of the screen is information I don't need all the time. But what Far Cry 2 also did was give me a lot of mechanics to keep track of that weren't necessarily helping immerse me since it was adding on a level of micromanagement I didn't care for, so it had the complete opposite effect. I think at some point all the pros of a minimalist hud basically broke under the weight of the things I didn't care for.

@tothenines: I apologize if my text didn't completely convey my thoughts. Basically, it boils down to me comparing games in the same franchise in which I liked one but not the other where one of the major points of difference is the setting. Not the type of game it was or it's overall aesthetic DNA.

@slag: Red Dead Redemption is a fascinating case for me because ever since I was young I have always disliked the old west as a setting. Even in films. There's something about the way that world is portrayed in a lot of mediums that just make it seem like the most bleak empty place to be in and that always rubbed me the wrong way. But Rockstar managed to make it not only appealing but quite visually striking and their version of the old west, while still probably a place I wouldn't want to live in, still seemed like (all the horrible parts aside) to be a pretty fantastic land to explore.

@fisk0: When I first played one of the Souls games, one thing that really jumped out at me was the setting. Because it reminded me so much of how I envisioned a 3D version of an old Swedish board game would be (it was called Drakborgen). And although I never had the motivation to really play through Dark Souls or even Demon's Souls, I enjoyed those settings and I sort of wish to play a game in a similar setting but without the grind and in depth systems (or a more streamlined version of them).

I adore a lot of cyberpunk settings and in some cases the setting even helped elevate the game. The last Syndicate is a perfect example of that. The overall game had some cool ideas and when combat was flowing your way you felt like a killing machine, but what really had me continuing through that game was seeing new areas. Likewise with Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Though that game was less of a rollercoaster of Syndicate but I had the same admiration for it's world building. I spent a hell of a lot of time just looking at the places I was exploring in Human Revolution.

My opinion? There are always exceptions, but in general, I think games should set their game wherever they want - lore, history, while important, should never limit and should take a backseat to what could otherwise be an amazing 'virtual vacation' for a player.

Just because it "makes sense" a player should be in a dimly lit, dingy, broken-down brown warehouse, doesn't mean that's where they should be. For some games that really hinge on a sense of realism, I get that. But for many games, this is not the case and can be explained away with the faintest of dialogue/exposition somewhere.

There are a great many people that do not care what makes sense or doesn't, as it relates to setting. If it's explained away enough and internally consistent with itself, I think you can get away with more than one might on-the-head believe.

Serve, set, spike!

My reference for this is GTA. I love the darkly comic, cynical perspective of that series when it is set in San Andreas/California. The plastic, meaningless, corrupt vapidity that tries to sheen over the inequality, the grime, the dirty humanity... I love that shit set in San Andreas, it has the right west coast attitude. When that shit is set in a colder, more familiar New York/Liberty City, the suffering and decay just hits me too close to home. The satire gets lost for me because their absurdly brutal and corrupt world seems way too close to the real thing. It doesn't help that 4 amped up the human drama and made Nico almost too realistic. CJ, Michael, Trevor, Franklin; they all seem like personality types inhabiting a crazy fucked up world.... Nico's plight just is the real crazy fucked up world.

@brodehouse: That's interesting, I had so many issues with GTA IV (Liberty City as a setting being one of them) and I think as time has passed since I played it I've grown to resent the game on some level. Thinking about it, I didn't much care for Watch_Dogs rendition of Chigaco either so maybe modern metropolitan cities are hard to make interesting with the way they're planned. Granted, I did really love my time in Sleeping Dogs rendition of Hong Kong. But that could be the novelty of being set in a city of a completely different culture and a game that takes inspiration from a certain type of films I really like.

@believer258:

What I liked the least was the setting in Skyrim. I hated the terrain. Too many mountains to climb and it all looked the same :( much preferred Oblivions setting.

I loved Oblivion, too, but you and I must have played different Oblivions. One of my main complaints with Oblivion is the sheer lack of difference in environments. All of the dungeons look the same and practically the entire world, except for one snowy part in the north, is grassy green forest.

Also, I love the snow and I love mountaintop views of snowy, northernly, winter-ish areas, so naturally Skyrim's setting is something that I was bound to love.

@believer258 said:

The central area around the Imperial City was definitely lush, green forest, but that doesn't exclude the swamps on the borders of the Black Marsh nor the golden wheat fields off in Hammerfell's direction. Cyrodiil at night was super atmospheric as well. Especially when you looked up and saw the constellations, the moons, and how utterly alien it all is. Assassinating some random stranger (by accident of course; I thought it was a demon) with a bow while the in game wind breathes over the grass was pretty damn striking in terms of aesthetic. Going back to it now I'm sure it's far more bland than my memory says it is, but I think people will say the same of Skyrim and its gorgeous landscapes once it's damn near ten years old.

I agree on the samey-ness of dungeons, though. Those weren't all that interesting to look at; I just take issue with the idea that Oblivion wasn't drop dead gorgeous or didn't have a different look for different areas.

It was gorgeous at the time, I just don't recall anything except grassy forests and grassy plains. There probably was a swamp in there somewhere but I don't remember it, I just remember being relieved and surprised when I went north and there were snowy mountains! I also played Oblivion in 2010, long after everyone else had played it for two hundred hours and then moved on. I'm not saying that the world is uninteresting, just that I remember there being miles and miles of what felt like the similar environments.

@believer258 said:

Yeah, they were similar environments; so were the environments in Skyrim, though. I mean, Riften looked like my backyard in the fall, Falkreath looked like my backyard in the spring, Markarth looked like my backyard in the summer, and Winterhold looked like my backyard in the winter. Instead of having seasonal weather, Skyrim more or less did them all at the same time. It doesn't detract from how gorgeous the game is, but the key difference between Oblivion and Skyrim, in terms of environments, is choosing to represent each season instead of one. At least that's what I think.

Still, the view on the tundra west of Winterhold is something else.