Gameplay or Story?
I just read the Eurogamer review of Dreamfall in which the reviewer gave a score of only 5/10 based on the poor quality of the gameplay. Now, I've seen other reviews give the game a good score because of the story, but that feels a little wrong to me.
I know that a game is much more than just a gameplay experience, but if the gameplay is weak should a review bump up the score to an eight or nine just on the strength of the story (or the graphics)? Shouldn't a game review, first and foremost, judge a product on whether it succeeds as a GAME?
Or am I missing something?
I keep seeing game reviews or postings on forums which complain about lack of gameplay (not just in adventures, mind). Many trailers for games are more like trailers for films and show nothing of what the gameplay is going to be like. I keep hearing of putting emotion into games and delivering experiences that have the depth of the best Hollywood films.
I can't help but feel that a large proportion of the budget for many games is being spent in areas that have nothing to do with gameplay and so we end up with weak gameplay or simply more of the same.
Perhaps some companies are moving towards interactive experiences that utilise a gameplay-like interface but which are becoming less and less like games in a traditional sense.
Perhaps Dreamfall deserves an eight because it's a good interactive experience (intex, anyone? :) ) but only if it's reviewed as such. Does it deserve a five when reviewed as a game?
At what point in the development of a game does the story take over from the gameplay? At what point does the need to tell a specific story remove the developer's ability to do so through interesting gameplay, tying the gameplay goals in with the story goals and plot development?
If we're making games, isn't gameplay more important than story?
I know that a game is much more than just a gameplay experience, but if the gameplay is weak should a review bump up the score to an eight or nine just on the strength of the story (or the graphics)? Shouldn't a game review, first and foremost, judge a product on whether it succeeds as a GAME?
Or am I missing something?
I keep seeing game reviews or postings on forums which complain about lack of gameplay (not just in adventures, mind). Many trailers for games are more like trailers for films and show nothing of what the gameplay is going to be like. I keep hearing of putting emotion into games and delivering experiences that have the depth of the best Hollywood films.
I can't help but feel that a large proportion of the budget for many games is being spent in areas that have nothing to do with gameplay and so we end up with weak gameplay or simply more of the same.
Perhaps some companies are moving towards interactive experiences that utilise a gameplay-like interface but which are becoming less and less like games in a traditional sense.
Perhaps Dreamfall deserves an eight because it's a good interactive experience (intex, anyone? :) ) but only if it's reviewed as such. Does it deserve a five when reviewed as a game?
At what point in the development of a game does the story take over from the gameplay? At what point does the need to tell a specific story remove the developer's ability to do so through interesting gameplay, tying the gameplay goals in with the story goals and plot development?
If we're making games, isn't gameplay more important than story?
posted by Steve | 6:50 PM
4 Comments:
Dreamfall is a bit of a stir for some gamers but to be fully honest Eurogamer is the worst reviewer out there. They don't like adventures and it's plain as day. If you're not given a gun to go round on a mindless inferno then it'll get a poor score.
Take BS3, it's the same boat. I'm sure their slogan is "Eurogamers - We don't like adventure"
TLJ for me will remain one of my favourite games of all time, and from comments it seems that Dreamfall repeats what TJL did in the first place.
I'd say they're completely wrong claiming that the gameplay in Dreamfall is weak. Funcom made some design choices leading to quicker gameplay compared to traditional adventure games. You have few items in your inventory, and there is little or no pixel hunting. So while there are plenty of adventure moments, you rarely get stuck for more than short periods of time.
And getting stuck isn't gameplay enhancing in the first place.
That said it does seem like they kinda ran out of time for the second half of the game. There isn't as much to do between "story moments", like there is in the first part of the game. Still it sucks you straight in. I found the game very hard to put down, because I just had so much fun. It was the most fun I've had with an adventure game since Grim Fandango and Overseer.
You mention something important, gameplay being just "more of the same" in many games. Few games make you wonder "what will I get to do next?". Even though you do at times not get to do very much in Dreamfall, what you do get to do is almost always great.
So to conclude I'd say that Dreamfall most definitely isn't "gameplay weak", but perhaps "gameplay short". A very important distinction to make.
Dreamfall is an amazing ride I wished would never end.
When it comes to the general issue of story vs gameplay it seems to me very few games these days have strong storylines. It's usually maninly about the gameplay, only most of the time the gameplay ends up being just more of the same. Another level, another boss. So I definitely do think many developers should pay more attention to the gameplay, but even more of them should think more about story. Making gameplay shorter but sweeter, tied together with a strong storyline, is much better than the other way around.
Firstly, the reviewers who do give the game a good score almost seem to be apologising for doing so because of the lack of gameplay. My questioning of the scores isn't to do with the overall quality of the experience but whether a game review should give a high score to a game that has gameplay failings.
Peter, just because Eurogamer appears not to like adventures doesn't mean that their review of Dreamfall isn't valid. When you read it you can see why he gave it a five.
Harald, I agree that getting stuck for lengthy periods can be incredibly frustrating in a game. However, if there is little challenge that can be equally frustrating. You say, "it does seem like they kinda ran out of time for the second half of the game. There isn't as much to do between "story moments", like there is in the first part of the game" which seems to be weak gameplay for me.
A few sequences during the last half of the game could be considered weak in terms of gameplay. It's in my opinion the only thing that's really weak about the game (I played with a gamepad though, the mouse control seems to need some tweaking and/or time to get used to).
But most of the time the gameplay is a wonderful (if sometimes short) experience. The excellent and emotional storyline, and awesome voice acting, helps with this.
For instance the voice over of Zoë's fluffy pet robot Wonkers is the best I've ever heard. I could've talked to him forever, had he not run out of new things to say. He came alive like few NPCs have ever in the history of computer gaming managed to.
A seasoned adventure gamer will rarely if ever become stuck for more than a few minutes, but you are doing lots of stuff. It's nothing at all like "find/get the key to the locked door in order to continue"-phenomenon that's common in first person shooters for instance.
So what I'm saying is that if they had fleshed out the gameplay this would've been one of the best games ever created. Now I "only" think it's great.
The gameplay should be mentioned in reviews of the game, for being both great, and at times weak. In my biased opinion it's something that removes one point from the game's overall score, on a scale from 1 to 10. For me who really like what they've done with the game this means it deserves a score of 8 or 9, of ten. If you don't like the story, the controls, or want really tough puzzels, I can see how you could give the game a point or two less. But if you try to enjoy the game, and spend some time with the mouse control for instance, a score of 5/10 isn't fair imho. It would be as if I were to give Command and Conquer a bad score just because I don't like strategy games.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home