http://www.computerandvideogames.com/464912/previews/hands-on-and-interview-the-order-1886s-e3-demo-showcases-style-over-substance/

CVG: So of the three key aspects of a game - visuals, gameplay and story - which would you say was your priority with The Order 1886?

Game director (Dana Jan): I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it's what we start with. It's at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that. I think it'd be more challenging to make a game for the gameplay's sake, then try to make a story that fits in there.

What the? It's almost like gameplay is a pain for them. Something they can't get around? I love a good story and top graphics but gameplay needs to be fun. This seems like a really odd this for a game director to say.

Could they mean that they're just going to go for relatively routine gameplay, rather than weak gameplay? That's the way I want to take it, at least: the idea that the gameplay will be an afterthought isn't one I like much.

I'd say that was already obvious enough. Plus their noted inspiration was Uncharted 2, so that too kinda gives their aspirations for The Order away. A real shame frankly, as ever since the debut trailer I was hoping this would be Sony's answer to Gears =/ They damn well better deliver on its story then.

i could never give enough of a shit about any nonsense involving werewolves or whatever it is this time that has no relevance to the world we live in WHATSOEVER, to actually remember what gibberish npcs are droning on about at any given time.

the developers need to remember this and COMPLETELY OVERSTATE EVERYTHING TWICE so that I can follow their story. which i won't.

hooray for videogames.

@metal_mills: I'm actually really happy to see this. Creating a game around a gameplay concept is perfectly fine. Jon Blow has talked many times about how the time rewind mechanic came to him first, and he created Braid around it. But then again, the 'story' in Braid is one of the most peripheral I've ever seen. I think all too often, when a game is gameplay focused with a tacked on narrative, it sort of pushes the story out of focus to make room for the player to do stuff.

I love the Assassin's Creed Series, and I think Ezio's story is a solid one, but I had to struggle to care about most of the character drama when everything boiled down to once again climbing up stuff, quick melee kills, and sneaking around. That gameplay was great, but it felt very obvious that the story was wrapped around it. And even with something like Watch_Dogs (not to pile on Ubi too much), the excitement around that game was always just doing open world city stuff somewhat related to hacking. The 'why?' seems like an afterthought.

When you come from the story first, I think it can give you the unique opportunity to create gameplay that enhances it. As in the Witcher series, Geralt's use of crafting oils and potions could have been a random mechanic in any other game, but it suited the character and enhanced the story specifically by making you have to research with NPCs exactly what works best on certain monsters.

So when Jan says, "[Story is] at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that", he's not necessarily saying, "I don't really care about good gameplay." He could just be saying that they're designing the gameplay around the needs of enhancing the story and the characters, rather than many other games which seem to do the opposite.

If their aim is to deliver a rich story driven game, then what is the problem? If you're a very gameplay first, story whatever kind of gamer then it probably isn't a game for you, but who's to say what approach is right or wrong. Telltale obviously focuses almost entirely on story with their games and they are fantastic. If the gameplay ends up being actively bad then we're talking about something else entirely, but I see no problem with them setting out to tell a story first and foremost as long as the game they are building supports that approach.

Developers are chosing story and visuals over gameplay.

So basically Gone Home with supernatural soldiers fighting the forces of darkness. I'm cool with that.

That sounds a little bit better to me, if they have the gameplay down to what they know/want to do, there is nothing wrong with focusing harder on making the story better. I mean, are games like Walking Dead or The Last of Us really all that thrilling in the gameplay department, I think (debatable as it may be) but no, but the story and visuals knock them over the top. If this game can do that as well, all the more power to them.

I feel like when a developer puts their emphasis on story, the game too often feels like a very precise series of actions the player needs to take instead of an objective, some rules, and freedom to use those rules to accomplish that objective. My favorite games tend to be ones where gameplay is at the top and everything else has to serve it.

It's not really a big deal until we actually see the game, though. I mostly just hate it when developers do not give me much freedom in approaching a situation, and putting emphasis on story doesn't make that impossible. And besides, I really like some games that place importance on story - that new Wolfenstein was pretty good and Mass Effect 2 is pretty great.

I'm actually all for this. Gameplay is the least important part of a game for me, as blasphemous as that is for some.

It's just a different perspective, what matters is execution. I like games that service gameplay above all, and I like games that focus on story. What they choose as their focus isn't what makes or breaks a game, it is how they execute on it. There is room for both types of games in my library.

It's a third person shooter and it'll play like every other TPS since Gears of War. What else is there to say about it?

It's kind of refreshing to hear a developer just admit that they haven't even bothered trying to do anything with the gameplay worth talking about -because to do so would be too challenging for them no less- rather than listen to them spout a load of shit about how they've revolutionised hiding behind a wall shooting things in the head. My brain still translated his answer as 'blah blah don't bother buying our game because we're hacks and our game has no merit' of course, but I certainly appreciated his honesty while doing so.

So, it's a Gears knockoff with a ton of cutscenes. Very next gen.

Games have to be a very specific thing otherwise they are awful because I'm narrow minded. I like story-based games. If that part is good I'll get it if not oh well.

That seems like an awfully hostile interpretation of the director's comments.

"Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it."

LOL, why is this guy in the business of making action games?

I'm okay with this.

Riddick is a game with IMO pretty average gameplay (besides the melee being fun) where the atmosphere and pace make up for it. You didn't do the weaker parts of the game (like the shootouts) all throughout the game, instead you had several different elements; adventuring, melee fighting, stealth, shootouts. The better gameplay parts outweighed the weaker parts, and the atmosphere of the world still made the bad parts worth it.

The Darkness is a game where the gunplay is poor but the story and characters more than make up for it. It also threw you into a completely different world a couple times throughout and gave you some fun powers to mess with.

The new Wolfenstein is a game where the gunplay is just fucking perfect, to the point where any annoyances about the story or some pacing issues get blown to smithereens because it just feels so damn good.

The Order can focus more on story and visuals, but if, IF, it is literally just Gears of War style cover shooting throughout the entire game with several story sections with nothing but talking, the gameplay will bog down any good. If they instead have some slower gameplay sections (IE not standing there waiting for NPC's to give long speeches) like walking around a little hub world letting you soak in the atmosphere, and also sections where maybe your weapons are ineffective when a monster eventually appears and so you have to outrun it, it'll make any monotonous gameplay less annoying.

Top notch story and graphics can only carry a game so far, the gameplay still needs variety. I hope it can deliver

I'm so bored with this topic generally.

Can people just make good games, that look good enough with a stable framerate.

Please.

It's not something to be offended by, although unusual for them to be so candid about it before the games release.

It's always been like this- if you focus on gameplay the story suffers. If you focus on story the gameplay suffers.

Some game developers have gotten around this by trying to be more cinematic, but it's never been truly successful. Even Uncharted 2 doesn't have the greatest gameplay. They just found ways to make you not think about that (well, sometimes).

I am honestly still waiting for a game with good gameplay and a good story. It's never truly been done.

hello every quantic dream game ever

Yes, it most certainly has been done. There are plenty of examples.

At least they are honest about it. That said, I feel like this guy might be better off working on some indie project without the gunplay if he wants to have a major focus on story. Games like Gone Home have shown that you can make a great story-focused game with limited gameplay, but I feel like in most cases those games are much smaller projects. I'm perfectly happy I guess going into this knowing I'm getting a standard cover based shooter with a cool setting and story. If they were promising revolutionary gameplay then I'd be disappointed, but as long as they are honest about sticking with tried and true gameplay mechanics and putting them in an interesting setting then I'll keep my expectations in check and probably enjoy the game.

Sometimes that's the right call. Impossible to know if it is in this case until the game is out though

Uncharted 2 was known for its story?

@somedelicook said:

Isn't funny to you that the same people that made The Darkness made The New Order?

There's a reason I named all Starbreeze (and ex Starbreeze) games. Its VERY funny, they went from story focused to gameplay focused. Now I hope they just nail both and make a perfect game

Is Mr. Jan a native English speaker because this, "Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it." seems like a pretty poor choice of words.

Text interviews always sound like almost broken English because there's no emphasis on words or anything. They always seem somewhat confusing

Good, we could use more big games that prioritize story. Let's just hope they've got the chops to tell a good video game story. Too often I see claims like this and the game ends up being a mediocre movie broken up by generic gameplay. Unfortunately they haven't done a very good job selling me on the story or the gameplay yet.

The only issue you run into doing it that way, is that your story and visuals need to be damn good if your gameplay is mediocre and rarely does a game check all the check boxes. I personally put gameplay above everything, because at the end of the day that's the main reason I play games when I could be watching tv or a movie.

As long as the gameplay is functional and servicable unlike something like alpha protocol im fine with it. Alpha protocol had a great story but floundered on gameplay, I still ended up really enjoying the game though. Its not necessarily a bad thing, if you know you cant deliver amazingly deep gameplay just focusing on making it work and deliver an awesome story.

Honestly, to me it really doesn't matter. I like both schools of thought. I love games that are all about tight gameplay with very little story, and I love narrative driven games with very basic gameplay. There can be both and developers can choose to prioritize these things however they wish.

As long as it doesn't play like shit and the visuals and story are interesting, I'm fine with that.

@ll_exile_ll: So what are the examples. Nothing you linked is an example of a game with a good story and good gameplay.

The Witcher 2 gameplay is awful. It always has been. They had to even revamp it because it was so bad on release and what they had after is just serviceable.

Mass Effect 2 gameplay is very bad- especially in relation to the first which was way better. The story was better in Mass Effect 2, though.

The story in Last of Us is cheap and ripping off other, better, games and media.

Dragon Age Origins story isn't that great. The gameplay is serviceable for using mechanics that were done 10+ years after they were even standard- also known as legacy or "old school". Not a bad game, but it didn't do anything special

Half Life 2 has standard gameplay- while inventing physics in a FPS- with a interesting story that was done better in the original.

So, no. It hasn't. I know being a fan boy and looking at games purely academically is not at all in most peoples ball park but when we break every game down- even classics- they are tolerated either for story or gameplay. Not both. Fans will overlook the downsides to uplift the strong sides.

I'm a fan of half life 2, but when I look at it purely gameplay and story wise it wasn't really as good as half life one (other than adding physics which was huge from a gameplay perspective). It didn't do anything special story wise. Half life 1 (a game I consider one of the best games of all time) had a great story, and enemy AI was amazing, but the gameplay was very standard.

Um... Honestly, I think there are developers that think this way as well anyways, this is just the one time that it's actually been said outright. For instance, Bioshock Infinite perhaps...

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

@cornbredx: Well when you put it all that way, no game or movie or anything ever has ever been good because nothing is ever original., gameplay story or otherwise

I think this shows a fundamental flaw in the orthodox view of how developers creates games. Story and gameplay shouldn't discrete parts of a game which can be separated and put at odds against each other, they should be working together. A much richer and unique narrative can be told if the two areas are combined to a greater whole, look at games like Papers, Please, Cart Life, and even games like the Sims, where the gameplay is used to inform a story which can only be told through the medium of gameplay. I can't wait for the day where developers are not content with making 2 hour long CGI films with arbitrary gameplay to grind through to get to the next story beat, in the name of having a "good story". At the end of the day, its is very rare that games come anywhere close to the depth and quality of story telling of other media when it comes to actors talking through a script. There is just so much potential in video game storytelling being untapped.

@somedelicook: No. I am saying games have not ever done both gameplay and story well.

It is of course known that most modern day story telling is unoriginal. That doesn't make it un-creative. However, film, and even writing, is a directed experience. The only focus is telling a story and so many still do it well.

Developers have the difficult task of needing to mix gameplay with story telling (sometimes, not all games choose to have a story). When they do, they will focus on one aspect more and the other aspect will suffer.

This has nothing to do with the aspect of storytelling alone and therefore does not apply to other mediums. Being original has nothing to do with something being done well. Being done standard is not being done well, either. We see this a lot with games that focus more on story. A good example is Spec Ops the Line which had an amazing story and very standard gameplay.

@starvinggamer: You're right- I should have left personal opinion out of it. Couldn't help myself there. The relational aspect of gameplay in one game over another is strictly opinion.

@cornbredx: You sound like a really fun person to talk/hang out with.

It sucks that in your opinion there haven't been games that had both great gameplay and story, but I think you are in the minority here.

@spaceinsomniac said:

Except the developers of Gone Home have said that they started with the gameplay first before the story came along, so it's not really a good argument for the approach used for this game... Edit: although, to be fair, it doesn't mean that you can't start with a story. The way they say it just sounds like they're just doing it out of obligation.

Atmosphere and gameplay make or break a game.

The methods people like this guy want to use to tell a story tend to constrain gameplay. To the point of just making the player go through the motions in a straighjacket. Sometime even taking control away from the player without warning, mid-action (Uncharted series). Some people are down for paying $60+ for this. I think it's a colossal false-start for real story-driven games and backward thinking from people who would be more welcome and comfortable working in films or books.

@cornbredx: What? What does is mean for a story to be "cheap"?

@ssully: It sucks that I'm being lambasted for clinically looking at beloved games, but I should have expected that.

I don't know if your first part is sarcasm, but I assume it is. I have no idea how I make people think I'm such a terrible person, but it's something I seem to have to expect every time I post something people don't like- which seems to be often haha

I mean it's true that no game has ever had both good gameplay and a good story, but I'm sorry that it upsets people.

You know, just because something is bad doesn't mean it's not ok for people to like it. Just wanted to make that clear since people are becoming upset.

@heyguys: It means it was simple. Like the Twilight series. It takes simple concepts that teenagers (in the case of twilight) will follow and profits off it. Several big sellers these days do it.

As for The Last of us- it stole aspects of several stories done before it thereby making it cheap. It was a simple act of knowing other stories and doing what they did for profit.

I didn't like it, it's ok if you did.

How exactly is making broad, dismissive, and nonspecific comments about the games I mentioned being bad even remotely "looking at them academically and breaking them down." Nothing you said was even somewhat academic. All you said was "The Witcher 2 is awful... Mass Effect 2 is very bad... The Last of is cheap... Dragon Age Origins isn't great and is old school... Half Life 2 is standard and worse than the original." Very academic.

How about instead of making unfounded accusations of me being a fanboy you actually make reasonable arguments to support your stance, like I'm about to:

The Witcher 2 is among the best in the action RPG genre at blending deep role playing with visceral and immediate action. The controls are responsive and you have a nice array of combat options. The overly complex stance system of the first game was translated in a more action oriented combat system that is fast and enjoyable. Even better, the game actually demands that you learn how to use to the mechanics and learn the weaknesses and behaviors of enemies, presenting a refreshing degree of challenge compared to other third person action RPGs like Kingdoms of Amalur and Fable. The story maintains the same high standards of sharp writing, an intriguing plot, and a dark and mature tone that neither patronizes nor panders to the player.

Mass Effect 2, while arguably going a bit too far in streamlining the game from the cumbersome roots of the first game, succeeds in integrating enjoyable third person shooter combat with the compelling character driven storylines. On the surface the combat appears to be a standard, if fairly well executed, Gears of War-like cover based shooter, but upon closer inspection the game shows itself to possess far more depth than a standard TPS. The various powers, defenses, and types of damage have deep rock/paper/scissors mechanics that add a degree of strategy to the gameplay that makes encounters very engaging. Between your squadmates and your own powers combat encounters present lots of options in how you choose to approach them and higher difficulties demand quick thinking and strategic planning.

The Last of Us is first and foremost a character driven story about the relationship between two characters as they endure a harrowing cross country journey. The game uses familiar framework, a post apocalypse, an a parasitic infection, a immune individual as the only possible hope for recovery, but this framework is meant to contextualize the character journey, not serve as the primary focal point. The strength of the game is the incredibly well written and believable dialogue that gives brings the two main characters to life. Gameplay wise, the game's mix of stealth and third person shooting is incredibly intense, with death awaiting every minor mistake. The need to conserve resources and avoid getting overwhelmed gives the gameplay a feeling of desperation that perfectly compliments the dire tone of the story.

You're right about Dragon Age Origins sticking very closely to the classic CRPG formula, but that was the entire point of the game. It takes tried and true mechanics proven to work in some the best games of all time and modernized them. The core of the game was the incredibly sound combat that resembled the classics, but a modern presentation, smart encounter design, and strong foundation of well tuned abilities make it something more. At a time when most RPGs were mindless action RPGs, Dragon Age Origins was a return to the strategy and tactics that once ruled the genre. As far as the story goes, like the all the best Bioware games the somewhat formulaic plot exists as a reason to interact with a cast of unique and interesting characters. The game sends you to a variety of locations on fairly straightforward tasks, but once there you get involved with local politics and meet interesting people.

To say that Half Life 1 had a better story than Half Life 2 is to either completely forget what the first game actually was or remember through very rose tinted glasses. The story of the first game was very well done for the time, but looking back is more environmental observation than actual narrative. Half Life 2 set a bar that some would say still hasn't been surpassed as far FPS narrative is concerned. The game manages to weave an interesting story despite starring a mute main character that never actually appears in the game, and the way other characters interact with Gordon makes the player feel incredibly invested. The gameplay, when viewed today may seem pretty basic, but there's no denying it's mechanically sound to insane degree. The weapon handling is simply perfect, the arsenal is varied and fun to fire, and the game has a nice array of enemy types which each demand different tactics. Even the puzzle solving and platforming is well done.

So, there is my reasoning for listing these games as examples of games with both good story and good gameplay. You're obviously free to disagree, which you obviously do, but if you're going to disagree to a such a strong degree at least give some reasons beyond "it's bad." I can't say I appreciated the vaguely insulting nature of your post set to a dismissive tone. It's a shame you didn't enjoy these games as much as I and others did, and I sincerely hope you're able to find a game that satisfies you in both story and gameplay someday.

@cornbredx: I haven't finished The Last of Us so I can't really say I like or dislike its story but let's be honest just about every story told at this point has similarities to others so that's not really a great way to judge the quality of a story.

It bugs me when game developers ignore gameplay over other things. I like nice stories and nice visuals as well, but I don't like it at the expense of a fun game. I don't want to suffer through the shooty part to see another cutscene. If all I want are cutscenes, I should be watching a movie. Many of these companies seem like they want to make CG movies instead, but are hungry for that $60.

@cornbredx said:

I feel like most people who say that has a very constrained definition for what gameplay is. In the Mass Effect games, I'd categorize the dialogue choices as a part of the gameplay. That's the whole gameplay of The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us, with some minigames sprinkled on top. To say that the shooting and walking around are the only "game" parts of those games would be a little unfair.

(While on the topic of those Telltale Games, I think those games are the best arguments or starting with a story/setting and designing a game around it.)