Story I can understand, but graphics over gameplay? Really?

I can equate this to Nier. The graphics are shit but I couldn't care less about that because it's not a huge big budget game and it tells it's story perfectly the way it is. The gameplay is a different beast because it is unique and weird and is part of the charm, something that I can't see a shooter posessing (unless it's something like The Darkness). It's the story that kept me going. But when you prioritize graphics over gameplay, to me that's just really... dumb sounding.

I'm also someone who HATES pretty much everything Quantic Dream is doing/has done, and those are the epitome of graphics over gameplay. I just don't get how that makes for a good game. It's like having a really beautiful boy/girlfriend who is a complete drag to hang out with. Nope.

In fact the only game I can think of that successfully combines the three elements - graphics, gameplay, and story - and passes with flying colours is The Witcher 2. I actually think everything in that game is pretty much perfectly executed and they all complement each other so well. The Order devs deciding to focus on some aspects more than others is a really strange decision, it just tells me that they're kind of unmotivated and are unwilling to learn as developers. Why not strive to make the game as best as you can in all areas, instead of a select few?

I'm really not trying to fight. I feel you are because you don't like that I would suggest games you like have flaws, but I am not. While I did claim you are a fanboy I also stated my own fanship so that it would not be seen as a dismissive skirt at your character (because it wasn't intended to be).

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.

I'm sorry but the combat is not responsive. I actually enjoyed what they did in the first game with combat, but it was still poor. I liked combat in the second as well but I didn't think it was quite as good- there's a clunkiness to combat in both games that is annoying but in the first it felt a tad more natural. We are both stating opinion, though. Neither of us are being academic when we say how we feel about the combat. It's really just standard in both games. It's not very good, but the story holds those games up. I never disagreed those games have great stories- they have some of the best writing in any RPG. The gameplay suffers, though.

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.

I'm sorry but the gameplay never reveals itself to be more than trying to ape what the most popular mechanics of the day are. I think it's fine that they took a gamble and turned it into a more action oriented game, and Mass Effect 2 does more with story than most games even try to, but the gameplay was not satisfying because it tries to mix RPG mechanics with action and at some point it doesn't even feel like either element really matters. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to explain why.

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.

I was actually trying to avoid going indepth about The Last of Us because my opinion of it (as a game) is not popular so I will do my best to stay away from opinion.

The gameplay is weak. It relies to heavily on old hat stealth mechanics (which I enjoy, btw) and cheap one hit kills (which I don't care for when done poorly). The shooting is very unsatisfying, but I would agree with the argument that it may have mostly been intended to be.

I like that people say that "if you don't like it it's because you suck at it" but really I don't like it because it's bad. I can't tell if that is fact, though, so I will drop it with the gameplay. I'm sure it's great for people who liked it.

The story however is just ripping parts of every popular zombie/post apocalyptic story ever done. It did nothing creatively and the only thing people seem to prop it up for is attempting to touch on the act of child rape. I guess that's applaudable because this is a game, but it did not do so with any finesse. Edgar Allen Poe would be ashamed. (For those that may not know, one of the things Edgar Allan Poe did was critique writing for a newspaper).

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.

Sticking to tried and true is easy and critically speaking is not good design. I want to point out again that I am not saying these games are bad, nor that someone liking bad aspects of them is wrong.

The game did nothing special gameplay wise, and for the record the second one was a step backwards in terms of design. I think they should have tried more to build on the old school aspect they were originally going for, but they shunned away from that- probably due to it being too complicated for mass marketting, but I can only speculate.

I didn't say before (Edit: I did say before and was off about it- i was thinking of the second game before which I thought, story wise as well as game play, was lacking but I actually was writing about the first Dragon Age), but this is another game with a well told story from what I can recall [now that I actually think about it]. Like Mass Effect it utilizes it's various characters well and gives you a lot of breathing room in terms of characterizing yourself and your companions.

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.

I still play both Half Life games and love them a lot. I don't speak about this game with rose tinted glasses. I'll refrain from being a fan boy about them because that is what we are trying to do.

The physics, and therefore it having puzzle design, was amazing at the time. The story was just rehashing the first game, but removing Xen and now instead having them attack earth was a step in the right direction.

Every time I think about this game I am conflicted. I like it in so many ways, but the biggest downfall is how much worse the AI is in 2 as opposed to 1.

You would probably be able to convince me of most anything good about these games because I am a pretty big fan of them. I still say the story isn't great- because of all the literature I read story in games just never compares- but I will agree it comes very close in this one.

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.

I'm sorry you see my wording as dismissive. We're writing on a forum so I don't like to take up peoples time. I try to stay succinct, but that seemed to insult you. It's not really about disagreeing, though. It's just facts. When you hold games up to the microscope of literature you would actually say none really compare but I have a hard time not arguing for story in a lot of games because they are breaking the bonds of a perceived foible (that being that gaming is for children) and so when games do something more with a story beyond cheap characters and throw away dialogue that is generally something to be applauded just because of the nature of the medium.

It is unfortunate that time limitations means one aspect suffers when another doesn't in games, but it's still true. If they want to focus on gameplay the story will and does suffer and vice versa. There are many games that come close to breaking the mold but none have truly smashed it yet. I still believe they will sooner rather than later, but I have yet to see that happen.

What a waste.

This is what the marketplace has dictated for years with their voting dollars, and people are surprised?

I'm cool with this, I like the idea of the game's lore.

Well I don't usually care much for IGN's articles or news coverage but this article highlights a lot of my fears with this game: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/31/pax-2014-the-order-1866-seems-great-except-for-one-thing

I'm seriously starting to fear that The Order might be all pretty visuals and not much else. I knew the gameplay would be pretty basic but as long as it is fun and satisfying to play I can live with that but it sounds like it got some issues gameplay wise and maybe even camera wise as well. They even describe the camera as being claustrophobic and disorienting in one of the quiter moments of the game. My expectations has gone down considerable with each showing. I'm now more sceptical than excited for the game, but that may be a good thing in the end. Anyways the game isn't done yet but I have heard the gameplay being critiqued negatively when it comes to the gameplay multiple times so the problems might be more fundamental and not just a question of polish.

I don't see the problem. Deadly Premonition has shit visuals AND game play, yet people love that game for some reason.

@jeffsekai: Well that may be, but I thought this game at least had the potential to be something great. I love the setting of the game, it's just a shame that the gameplay might be really lackluster. I don't think pretty visuals is enough to make me want to play the game. The lore and story has to be really great then but even so... I fear this game might not be for me.

Besides Deadly Premonition at least has some charm because it is so broken and weird, even though it stole 99,98% of it's story from Twin Peaks. The Order might just be real pretty and real boring.

Fine with me. I got to the big games for spectacle, and I go to indies for innovation. And if the mechanics they come up with are interesting enough, the big devs will incorporate them into their games.

I have no problem with that.

The exact same things could be said for Uncharted, and I love the Uncharted games. There is a big difference between bad gameplay and serviceable gameplay - as long as playing the game isn't a chore I'm perfectly fine with standard third person shooting and a great looking story driven game.

It's their game, their property. Plenty of people have played games where "gameplay" (an already hazy term) was not the focus. Who gives a shit? Games can be whatever they want to be. And the ones that don't work for you, you don't have to bother with.

This seems like a super silly thing to get caught up on. You are not the only gamer on the planet, and what you like doesn't need to be the focus. I want all games to be first person, realistic, and complex. I'm betting if the industry catered to me, 90% of the people taking issue with The Order's priorities would be pissed off. Because not everyone wants the same thing and it's up to the developer to do what they want and make something interesting out of it.

Also, how is it okay for some indie darling that makes me want to puke because it's so indie to focus on story and have little to no gameplay but when someone wants to make something a bit flashier, it's not cool anymore?

Let a game be what it's going to be, and let it stand on it's own two feet. If you don't want it, move on to something you do want and don't look back. Personally, I doubt I'll really care about this game. I was super excited when the reveal made it look like an interesting coop shooter in a very cool era, but what they are doing instead doesn't interest me. I also don't really think it matters that it isn't for me, for anyone other than me.

There's plenty of developers that have said this about their game before behind closed doors, I'm sure. Nothing new. And there are some really good games with this mindset. Or games not designed to have weaker gameplay, but just turns out that way.

If we are talking genres like shooters for example? Most aren't doing anything revolutionary with their gameplay. This game looks like it's just a cover shooter with it's only different hook seems to be more destruction? Pretty well worn formula. Their areas of difference seem to be in visuals and presentation.

@ll_exile_ll: when someone makes a post like that it's not even worth bothering. You probably knew that but couldn't resisting replying.

@metal_mills: this just means it's easier making the gameplay around the story. If you come up with all these gameplay elements and then realize you can't use some you just wasted time and money. You need to know what gameplay elements you need first, not just take a guess.

Anyone can make a story, gameplay coding is complicated and needs to work right in the correct environment.

Seems odd that they're focusing on visuals and the developers have stated that 30FPS is "more cinematic."

"Developers are choosing story and visuals over gameplay..."

Well thank goodness for that!!!! The beinning of this generation has been developer after developer giving short shrifted their stories/narratives when ist mattered, so it is good to see a developer appreciating that story matters more than gameplay in some cases.

Its a single-player action-adventure, the story had DAMN WELL better be on the top shelf Uncharted is not good without its story! Mass Effect matters onlu because its story is encourages us, and ist falls when the ending fails.

Story matters and anyone who whines about a devloper not putting story below gameplay, is not thinking this through about what good games need to have.

I don't see a problem with this. Who's to say just because they're focusing on Story and Visuals that gameplay won't be good and proper? In fact, this could mean that there won't be anything gimmiky... I couldn't imagine building a game around a bunch of gameplay gimmicks, as opposed to having a story, creating it with visuals, and then asking yourself, okay so how do we have the player properly experience this thing we've put together? R-E-L-A-X

Totally cool with this. I love story focused games.

@zolroyce: I disagree with your inclusion of The Last Of Us in that statement. That game has interesting mechanics and well crafted level design that creates uniquely tense situations.

@brendan: That's fair, I kind of forget where my mind set was at when making that comment completely but I think its that, say you were playing that game with blank slate characters, none of the levels or game play hooks it had would have sold me personally on it, so to me that game is made due to its characters/writing first and foremost. That's not to say I didn't find the gameplay fun/engaging, it was almost like playing a really good zombie movie at times, like 28 Days Later at certain points, it was great.
But to my own experience if I was playing some generic hero I wouldn't have ever considered finishing that game, so the story is the driving factor to me and I'm very very glad it is.

Heavy Rain was nice?

Does this surprise anyone?

I don't find the statement generally strange (different developers prioritize different aspects of their products) so much as I find it strange in the context of this game, which looks entirely rote from every aspect save sheer fidelity.

Still if you're interested in the setting and playing with the variety of weapons they seem to have been talking about, I could see how this statement might rub people the wrong way.

Gameplay was fine when I last watched the trailer. Guess this was blown out of proportion.

Oh wow, I didn't know this. I loved The Darkness. I'm suddenly very glad that I pre-ordered this game. Starbreeze people have never done me wrong before. :-)

If they were really putting story above gameplay and could execute effectively upon it they'd be doing work I could approve. Sadly even if it's their highest priority the storytelling in their Gears of Victoria does not look that good.

What's it matter, the only game with a story that can stand against critical eyes and still seem good is Kentucky Route Zero. Yeah, I said it! You have your game make statements about the American economy, the modern South, and wrap itself thickly in reference and reverence to the American literary and theatrical canon and then we'll talk good stories.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that strategy but if you don't deliver on the story, and your gameplay is pretty lackluster nobody's gonna care about your game. And visuals aren't the wow factor they used to be.

Hello, reasonable person, fancy meeting you here.

Seriously, though, this is spot-on. I don't want every game to be a cinematic-focused, average playing linear story-driven experience... but there's plenty of room in my year for one or two of those, and I enjoy them a lot when they come around.

There's a hipstery glee in being the guy that dismisses the amazing-looking game because the gameplay isn't innovative, but I find that very short-sighted and, what is probably worse, a bit hypocritical. I haven't played The Order, but if it comes out and it's not outright broken, I'm definitely interested in seeing what a reliable set of developers can do with all those pretty pictures. And I'll pass judgement on it after I play it, not before, thankyouverymuch.

Also, let me put out there that there's some irony in Ready at Dawn being unfairly ignored after putting out a couple of fantastic, triple-A feeling mobile games with very little visual muscle to flex and now getting so much pre-release crap for focusing on the pretty when they are finally given a chance to go full triple A blockbuster.

I can take 30 fps. I can't take letterboxing in video games, that's 2002 level shit where you'd get letterboxing if you played some imported NTSC games on PAL systems.

Letterboxing doesn't make it more cinematic, it makes it feel more closed in and suffocating. I hate it. I hate letterboxing on movies where it has a valid reason for being there, so I hate it even more when it's artificial.

oldirtybearon wasn't saying The Order: 1886 is being made by ex-Starbreeze guys, he was stating Wolfenstein: The New Order was made by ex-Starbreeze guys.

The Order: 1886 is made by Ready at Dawn as their first original IP after making the God of War games for the PSP.

If it has a story that's great from beginning to end, I won't care. If it doesn't, the game will fail big time. For this, the developers are taking a huge risk of having a very boring game on their hands. You say that your game's focus is on narrative, it better have a damn good narrative because people know that everything else has the chance of being dull.

The story doesn't even seem that great though

Narratives in games work best when it creates a meaningful context for the game play (what am i doing in the game and why?). Narrative for the sake of narrative (telling of a plot) often results in a futile exercise that gets in the way of me playing the game. Sure, the story and characters can be compelling by themselves but what happens during cut scenes is that im no longer playing a game - im now watching a movie - and often not a very good one. Trying to spice it up with "press X to do stuff" makes me feel like om just going through the motions of the game. There's no agency in pressing X. The order seems to have visuals of 2015 but game design from around 2008. Trying to pull this off with a brand new IP that seems to lack any real USPs (unique selling points) is setting themselves up for failure IMO.

The order really leaves my puzzled as to why these devs are even in games and not just making a movie - except for the fact that it would never get green lit as a movie in the current studio environment, but thats a whole different issue.

When people try and defend these narration heavy games they usually come up two positive examples: Naughty dog games and Tell tale games.

Naughty Dog are more or less the the ones that developed and refined this sort of game design to the point where everyone wanted to be like them. They were/are the Pixar of tripple A. Problem is that not every studio has the same amount of talent and ethos of ND or Pixar. ND knows that in order to pull these games off you need main characters that are likeable, universal and relatable. The get the human element right. You also need to balance the story telling carefully with exciting gameplay and balance it out so the player doesnt burn out on either. They have been masters of pacing their games ever since Crash Bandicoot where they developed rythmes for "how much stuff should the player do before a break". Basically they understand why it works and others try to imitate them and fail. Yes the NDgames are more heavy on narration than i personally like but i can respect them for their craft and effort and its no a surprise they have succes.

Tell tale are in a different ball game completely. Ive enjoyed the walking dead despite it being all about narrative and almost no mechanical game play. However when they DO introduce game play its designed to convey tension for the scene your in. Their games are borderline movies but are very upfront about it. they dont have any action sections just to pad the game.

Now back to the Order: From what Ive seen of the game it seems to lack everything that make the ND games work. their characters doesnt seem likeable universal or relatable. I have no reason to believe this game will achieve any emotional connection with the audience what so ever. They seem to pad the game with soulless shooting shooting and pressing of X for the heck of it. The art looks crisp,realistic and expensive but also dry and uninteresting and uninspired.

Now i could be totally wrong about the Order and its GOTY.. But it sure aint the last of us.

Nothing in that statement says that they are prioritizing visuals and story but "forgetting" about gameplay. What I got from that was them saying, it's obviously a game, so having an entertaining game part is kind of a given.

That's what I don't understand. Judging by the trailers, they get their dialog from the same packaged cliché goods supplier (PCGS) that services Dishonored, Killzone, Gears of War, Splinter Cell, Tomb Raider, Crysis, etc.

In fact, games with decent writing tend not to be described as "story-driven". Maybe when the story is the selling point, publishers are extra-careful to make sure it's good. And to a publisher "good" means "blandly inoffensive to x% of end users".

The fact that you seem to be judging it based on a series of 2 minute trailers in what is presumably an 8-ish hour game is a bit odd. I don't really think we've seen enough either way to say whether or not it is great. If you mean it doesn't seem like your cup of tea, I guess that's more understandable.

@liquidprince said:

First impressions are critical. Would you spend your money on a shitty movie because the trailers (you know, the advertising) may not have done it justice?

People read way too much intent into a sentence taken out of an interview.

Let's hope the story is not crap then. If Mustachio guy is angry and wants to kill big bad monsters and then kills a bigger one in the end...Then no, not interested.

So far I've only seen things related to making it cinematically impressive.

Video Games and films are visual mediums; it always dumbfounds me people freak out about this stuff...whole console generations are created specifically because of "new, shiny graphics"! I also think its incorrect to say they are "ignoring gameplay to foster better visuals. Many great games of the past focused on graphics more than gameplay. Not every game needs to be mechanical masterpiece. If they did then we wouldn't have Elite: Dangerous.

I don't think the story will suck. Seems they have created some kind of mythology for their stuff. I also don't think the gameplay will suck, but I am sure it will be nothing more than a competent 3rd person shooter with a few interesting weapons. The first Uncharted game was mostly great graphics with just OK gameplay and that ended up giving us Uncharted 2.

If anything this makes me more likely to buy it. We have more shooters than I can shake a stick at but most of them are just gears of war mark 97 (cover shooting gais!!!) or Call of.... I got tired of this shit a decade ago. So if this is a shooter with functional gameplay that has a story worth actually seeing I am all for it. Gameplay needs to be solid and work, and have some level of fun to it, but we need to get over this idea that evolve or something is a good direction for games to go. One trick ponies and multiplayer only shooters need to die in a fire, and PS Gears of War hasn't been "good" in a long time.

To piggy back The Last of Us comments I will also mention there is nothing innovative about it's gameplay either. It was winning game of the year awards on the strength of it's story, not it's cover shooting mechanics.

A prime example of what they mean can be found in the narrative panel from PSX.

The way they tackle ludo-narrative dissonance. In the game you murder countless people (sometimes potentially innocents). The justification is that people in the Order stop thinking about the well being of individuals (long life can detach you from everyday concerns) and focus on doing the best for society, as such it is sometimes expedient to remove obstacles, innocent or not.

This schism in game design has been happening for a long time now. Some studios do gameplay right, some do the graphics and some do the stories. Some are good at two of them. Once in a great while, a studio will nail all three, but never consistently. I see no problem with a studio working with its strengths, though more studios could at least try to work out of their comfort zone more often.

@sinusoidal: Curiously enough RAD have always been known to do the graphics and performance magic for GoW games on the psp.

They have also been known as the studio that nails games that play exceedingly well (to the extent that some consider their GoW to be the best). They have never done a game from scratch and have always iterated on existing franchises.

All for it. Unfortunately i wont have a ps4. But i hope this turns out amazing.

They tell me that the story was a focus for them in development yet I don't exactly see anything that jumps out as original to me here, maybe the tesla weapons will be cool? Based on the trailers I just get the feeling that the protagonist eventually has the cliche crisis of conscious and switches sides when some craaazy plot twist (maybe YOU'RE THE HALF-BREED) happens that makes the Order seem like the bad guys all along (DUN DUN DUN). Hell that recent trailer all but confirms my suspicions so fuck that noise.

Sorry that I don't need to completely play through a game to get a sense of the story. Watching trailers that have pretty much only focused on cutscenes for the most part was more than enough for me to get a sense of what's going on, this looks like nothing more than a forgettable blockbuster rental which is how I'll treat it as if the shooting and weapons end up being decent at all.

All I care about is the experience, if the story gels well with the gameplay (however simple it may be) then that's all that matters.

Gameplay is just one element that makes up an experience, saying that it is the most important factor is really lazy and limits the scope of gaming as an entertainment medium. It is an unique and differentiating element of gaming, but focusing on just that is like having a movie with great cinematography but nothing in the way of substance (because you should just go read a book right?), there is a public for that but it's not exploring all the possibilities.

And no, just because someone wants to focus on story and characters doesn't mean he needs to go do movies or TV.

@liquidprince said:

In my 75 years of watching game trailers, it has never happened that I thought "The writing/storytelling in this game does not appear to be very good" and upon playing the game, discovered it was good. I can't think of an inverse example either. The lines they put in the trailer are chosen to impress you.

I guess the plot could be incredible. Bioshock Infinite made up for some fairly lame writing with its plot. Bit hard to imagine The Order matching that, honestly.

75 years of watching game trailers?! Are you from the future? Did you come back to make sure you met yourself, so you would be born?

Yay......................................

Good thing i wasn't excited to begin with I guess. At least Bloodborne will probably be cool, the new consoles are so slim on games. :/