28 replies to this topic

[omen613]

So I have a story all setup that I am satisfied with and go to event it...just to realize I have 20 mins of text and visual pleasures and ...no real gameplay....

I know some people actually prefer reading and enjoying a good story over mashing some buttons....but how can I have my cake and eat it too? lol



My battle system I personally feel is balanced and enjoyable...where your not just mashing attack over and over....the problem is making the encounters appear often enough to make gameplay.

I'll analyze other games....

Final Fantasy Tacitcs

• Go to the pub and get a quest.
• Go to the quest location and do a 10min fight
• Fights are fun cause player can customize their group setup and do different tactics to win.
• High gameplay
• Minor Story
• Uses a Tactical Battle System

Legend of Zelda Series

• Story is short and simple
• Get quest to go to dungeon full of traps and puzzles
• dungeon's reward items used to unlock the next dungeon
• One playable character focused game

Final Fantasy X

• Heavy story
• maps are very simple...walk in straight line to next map
• little to no puzzles
• Battles are fought through random encounters while walking on the the straight line
• Battles are fought during story progression...bosses
• Have a group of playable characters

Out of the three games I pointed out....only one really works with the default battle system of RPG MAKER VX ACE...and thats Final Fantasy X.


Guess I'm really asking is....How to add battles to the game without stomping your story?

If you have an awesome storyline...does it not matter if the gameplay is lacking?

Should Gameplay > Story generally?

[timk1980]

Short answer, I don't think gameplay or story should necessary ever trump each other. In the best-done games, gameplay and story flow very seemlessly together, or are at least presented in ways that allow for willing suspension of disbelief.

If you feel that your game is good as it is, even without any battles at all, that may be ok. The question at the end of the day: "is it fun to play?". I'd add on to that that there should still be some way(s) to "lose" or get a gameover scenario (since you won't have battles to do that for you), though I think that still falls under the umbrella of being fun to play. Without battles, that needs to be executed very carefully, of course.

[NuSevith]

Just a heads up, you should probably specify FFT as FFTA/FFTA2 instead. Considering, y'know, FFT was ALL ABOUT THE STORY. That shit was story heavy as all hell. The gameplay was amazingly fun too, of course, but man, dat story.

Anyways, you're just drudging up the all consuming Ludology v. Narratology debate. If you just search ludology vs. narratology debate, you'll come up with pages upon pages of massive debates and articles by game scholars. Hell, pretty much every academic discussion on the topic of Game Studies tends to always come back to the Ludology v. Narratology debate. Which has pretty much made it one of my least favorite topics of discussion within game studies.

The ideal for any game is to create a ludonarrative. A game whose gameplay and story are one in the same. Rather than ludology (story only gets in the way of gameplay and games are only their gameplay; story is just something tacked on and irrelevent to the experience of a game) or narratology (gameplay is just a driving force to deliver the narrative; a game, like any other medium, is just another way to tell a story; story takes priority), games that utilize a good ludonarrative are games where the story and gameplay are the same. Game scholars like Ian Bogost and Tim Bissel tend to push this. Games like Braid, Bastion, or Journey, for example.

But hey, honestly, I find the entire debate super dumb. There are games, like Tetris, that are pure ludology, and they're awesome. Then there are games that are pure narratology, like Phoenix Wright, which is ALSO awesome. Hence why this is a dumb debate. One isn't more important than another. It's just a matter of how good the parts that are focused on are.

[Chaos17]

Should Gameplay > Story generally?

No, your examples talk for themselves, they have a good balance between story and gameplay.
Only Zelda which is an A-rpg is different, it has less story than T-rpg and Rpg but they're trying to change that since Nintendo 64 by letting more place for story.

Out of the three games I pointed out....only one really works with the default battle system of RPG MAKER VX ACE...and thats Final Fantasy X.

That's a bit different because of the strong engine that make battles more entertaining in FFX and the graphics that make the game/battles pretty.
You may try to play old rpg that have been remake like FF4 (SBS), you have a real taste of what you can do with 2D, the same we're using in Rpg maker.
There is also Devil Survivor which is a good example of what you can do with the default battle system like ours.

How to add battles to the game without stomping your story?

You won't relly stomping on your story since that's usually like that in a Rpg, player go through a dunjeon before the story advance.
It's usually like : A (village/story) > B (dunjeon) > C (village/story)
Of cource, the story can also advance during dunjeon, that's just an example.

does it not matter if the gameplay is lacking?

It does matter in a Rpg because player are expecting to meet some mechanics.
Otherwise, it's better to make a visual novel if you don't want to bother yourself.

Edited by Chaos17, 30 May 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[omen613]

Just a heads up, you should probably specify FFT as FFTA/FFTA2 instead. Considering, y'know, FFT was ALL ABOUT THE STORY. That shit was story heavy as all hell. The gameplay was amazingly fun too, of course, but man, dat story.

Oh yes I should have stated the FFTA-FFTA2 which both had very weak story lines IMO. Thanks for pointing that out.


@Timk
Game over through dialogue...That I had not thought of...hmmmm

@Chaos
Well said...It's hard to find that proper balance. I'll have to take another look at FF6....I remember it being a good play with excellent storytelling mechanics.

Edited by omen613, 30 May 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[RavenTDA]

If you make a story without gameplay in mind, you're going to have a bad time.

Seriously though... you should consider gameplay when making and planning your plot... because if you don't have ANY gameplay at all planed and can't really fit it... why not make a pixle art movie? There is quite a few... some examples would be Aksha Seal (I think that's how you spell it) or Slimey. They're a lot of fun to watch and work just as well. There's even some movie making scripts hanging around.

You CAN break things up though more than you think if you really try. 20mins as intro is a bit too long. I really wouldn't say anything longer than 10mins is alright... Just break it up with letting the player walk around, explore a little or just SOMETHING. I can't really tell because I don't have your game plot plans in front of me but I think people are going to get restless. If you have a lot of "oh look at this map panning" you could probably chop that down to a minute at the most. It looks nice but sometimes people just don't care, especially if it's not custom graphics. What does your intro have that makes it so long... maybe you can begin in another part of the story and go back if you really can't change what happens at that point. But it is a bit much.

Also I wouldn't worry over gameplay > story. It depends on your game type. If the story is the strong point there should mostly be story. There is no gameplay is better than story unless you create it to be that way.

Edited by RavenTDA, 30 May 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Xeon]

Scripted battles with story elements woven into the fighting happens quite often and it seems like a nice way to handle this issue in some cases. Boss battles make things interesting, but what if instead of just boss battles, your fellow party members randomly said things during random monster encounters. Their banter could help develop their personality and make the mundane battles more interesting (although if your gameplay is good, the battles shouldn't be "mundane"). Heck, create some optional sub-plot events that randomly pop up that you can have initiated by simple random monster encounters. Nothing major, just minor things, but that way, things always stay interesting. This is all assuming that you even have a game with random encounters.

Edited by Xeon, 30 May 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[slaQ]

It always depends on personal preference ofc. But in general I'd say gameplay should always > story. It's a GAME after all. Games are interactive, games are meant to be played.
Real storytelling like cutscenes should be kept to actual key points in the game, be they small or big. What's a lot of fun is if during gameplay you get small hints about the story,
things that remind you of what's going on so you never lose track of the story, that's really important. What's also a good way to keep the pace in your games is instead of
having very elaborate long cutscenes, is just do more smaller cutscenes. Like delicious snacks the player will enjoy them and not get frustrated of not being able to do something for a long time.
Just don't overdo it, you don't want 5-10 mins of gameplay and then another cutscene. That can get annoying very quickly. Make sure it's appropriate.

[Shablo5]

How does FFX have 'little to no puzzles' ? Every temple is a fucking puzzle rofl.

If you wanna see how to make great RPG Maker games, PLAY some great RPG maker games.

[Archeia]

Persona 3 and 4 have long cutscenes but long hours of gameplay to compensate it and a nice pacing. So...
It really depends on the game.

[Levi]

Well, first off... I think battles should make sense. Regardless of how often/little they are used.

I think a big part of a great story, is a great setting. And if your battles/questing are aligned with that setting (or settings) I think you're fine.

A lot of people think of the Story in games as being the written bit... and that everything else is "filler" or just game-play. But to me... the wandering, the battling, the leveling and the looting can be (and should be) part of the story. The issue is, many people don't think of it this way, and thus don't try it this way... which results in a game that is fragmented or torn between the story/cutscenes, and the "trivial" things like random battles and exploring.

I think people need to start thinking of their entire game as a story. Simple things, like having Troops match their setting or align with other things in the world, can make the "grind" more part of the story. Granted it takes more effort... but that's what you've got to do IMO... a lot of things that are "better" just take more effort.

Red Dead Redemption (Some people may disagree with this)
All the random encounters.... the random wildlife or bandit battles. The Herb gathering quests.... they all (for me anyways) fit in. And at the end of the game, I found that when looking back I reflected on every portion of the game. Not just the cut-scenes, and not just the main quest. The hours and hours spent travelling... I considered that as much a part of the story and the 'actual' story. This is because it all made sense. Granted, RDR is a AAA game made with a powerful engine... but the same principles apply.

Edited by Levi W, 18 June 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[sabao]

...Simple things, like having Troops match their setting or align with other things in the world, can make the "grind" more part of the story. Granted it takes more effort... but that's what you've got to do IMO... a lot of things that are "better" just take more effort.

Does anyone here actually not do this? It seems like a matter of common sense to me. It doesn't even matter where or how the game was built. Any game designer worth his/her salt should know this.

Edited by sabao, 18 June 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[Levi]

Does anyone here actually not do this? It seems like a matter of common sense to me. It doesn't even matter where or how the game was built. Any game designer worth his/her salt should know this.

Whether or not they try, I don't know. But it sure doesn't feel like they do. Especially when all the enemies are cookie-cutter slime/spriggan/rat etc. Simply having Frost Trolls in Mountains and Fire Atronachs near volcanoes doesn't cut it for me. It's more than location. I used the word "setting". As said by The Free Dictionary:

a. The context and environment in which a situation is set; the background.
b. The time, place, and circumstances in which a narrative, drama, or film takes place

Very few people seem to put much effort into the enemies (as a whole... the enemy itself, location, relevance) for their game.

Hopefully I explained it better... if not, I apologize.

[Chaos17]

There is a type of gameplay you forgot, it's not used for Rpg but it's interesting from my point of view.
I'm not sure how people call it but I've an example : Corpse party.
That game gameplay is based on puzzles, not hard ones like in Myst and it's story driven.
Depending of your choice, you can have good or bad ending.
It's not a visual novel since you see and control your character and solve puzzle.
Corpse party was an rpg maker game, which got popular in Japan so much that they made a remake on psp.

So you see, gameplay can come in different way in a game. All that will depend after is your writting and mapping skills.
Sorry for my bad english.

Edited by Chaos17, 18 June 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[Solomon]

Final Fantasy Tacitcs

• Go to the pub and get a quest.
• Go to the quest location and do a 10min fight
• Fights are fun cause player can customize their group setup and do different tactics to win.
• High gameplay
• Minor Story
• Uses a Tactical Battle System

FFT has one of the best stories of the whole PSX series. We can't be friends.

[Sagitar]

Should Gameplay > Story generally?

I do agree with previous posters who said they should be balanced... However, you shouldn't really look at the pillars that makes up your game -- Aesthetics, Gameplay, and Story -- as separate entities.

Integrating your story into your gameplay, essentially telling your story through the mechanics of the game, is extremely effective storytelling. You don't see it that often... RPGs especially tend to be guilty of switching between cutscenes and gameplay at predictable points and always keeping story development seperate from actual gameplay Try instead thinking up creative ways for the player to discover the story on their own without you always switching over to a heavy-handed cutscene to explain everything.

For example, instead of a 10-minute intro cutscene with heaps of text describing your world, just drop the player into the world right away and let them read books, signs, talk to people, and discover it for themselves. It's the classic advice of show, don't tell. Consider interactive credits, where the player is actually playing from one credit to the next (LittleBigPlanet does this charmingly) instead of just sitting through a long, stagnant sequence.

Interactivity is what makes games unique, so don't turn your back on that with over-long cinematics, etc. I think weaving your mechanics and your story together is an important and rewarding challenge for designers.

[Celianna]

For example, instead of a 10-minute intro cutscene with heaps of text describing your world, just drop the player into the world right away and let them read books, signs, talk to people, and discover it for themselves. It's the classic advice of show, don't tell.

I'm all for show and not tell, but this does not mean I'll let the player walk around and miss entire pieces worth of dialogue. Cutscenes have to be forced, and the player shouldn't be able to avoid them. Show don't tell still works in cutscenes though. A really good example is instead of parroting a long narrative about the history of the world in the intro, like a 100 year old war between two countries, you could open up with a cutscene that shows the king being under attack by said country. That's 'show don't tell', not to let the player skip important pieces of dialogue. But I don't mind adding detail in the world itself through books, NPCs etc. But to let them discover themselves is pretty flawed, especially if you're got a really complicated plot.

[Solomon]

It's just like that Final Fantasy XIII movie that came out a few years ago. I really enjoyed the CGI, though I found the actors were forcing their lines. The nice interactive scenes were okay, but it sure wasn't a Spielberg film.

Edited by Aktiyah, 28 June 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[Levi]

@Celianna
I agree. But you could always rig the game to not progress without dialogue.... forcing the Player to investigate. If they try to progress to a certain area, or certain quest, just have dialogue pop up saying "I should probably investigate more" or something along those lines.

A limitation is not being able to hear things in passing. In a lot of RPGs (Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect [if you consider that an RPG]) people talk in the background. So when you're walking around you'll hear "Blah blah blah Quest A this and that"... but in RPG Maker you're forced the either let the player interact with each person, or have forced dialogue.

One thing that could fix this, is to have "proximity" events... where when passing near a person a "Speech Bubble" appears above them that shows the NPC/Event as having something to say. I think this could be worked in a very subtle and effective way. And if it's a branching dialogue, have the Speech bubble on a switch, where it continues to appear above that event until a certain line off dialogue is reached.

Just a thought

[thatbennyguy]

We should combine all story vs. gameplay threads into one. Otherwise it's just ridiculous.