A few years ago, way back in the year 2011, Cliff
Bleszinski answered a fan question on Twitter. The fan asked, "What is
more important, story or gameplay?" In other words, is it more important
for a game to look great and tell a deep story, or is it better for a game to
focus on playing well and provide great fun to the player? In my opinion, the
answer varies depending on who you ask. You have people who can do both very
well, you have games which are notable for refining one into artwork, and you
have developers who can do one very well and need to focus on the other for a
sense of balance. As for Bleszinski, he enigmatically tweeted back, "The
Story of the Gameplay." Here we were expecting one or the other, but here
is the curveball response.
I have occasionally obsessed over this answer ever since
that day. What does that mean, the story of the gameplay? Does he mean one or
the other? Does he mean both or something else entirely? On one hand, we can
see it as Bleszinski being a wise guy and end it at that. Me, I like to give
more credit than that. If not to Bleszinski, than to the concept itself. I
happened to have tweeted back, asking Cliff if he was referring to an actual
concept. I never heard back. So in the absence of any clarity from the source,
let's figure out what it could mean ourselves. For reference, we will use
Bleszinski's own Gears of War and its sequels.
For the uninitiated, Gears of War is a series of
third-person shooter games. You take on the role of Marcus Fenix and a thrown-together
squad of soldiers as they fight a seemingly hopeless war. The enemy? The
Locusts, a race of invaders that emerged from underground to claim the planet. The
interesting thing about the Locusts is how their ground troops are largely
similar to humans to the point where they even use firearms and similar
military tactics. Thus the conflict is more similar to fighting a standard war
against a cunning and strategizing foe than any old alien invasion. Weapon
choice, focusing targets, positioning, finding cover, and aiming true are all
vital and you can't win if you lack any of them.
"@Culbec: @therealcliffyb what's more important, story or gameplay?" The Story of the Gameplay.
— Cliff Bleszinski (@therealcliffyb) March 16, 2011
The tweet that sparked this discussion
So now that we have our game, how do we tackle our
concept? Let's break it down. "The story of..." refers to an event
which is communicated between people, either recalling something that happened
or making something up. "... the gameplay" refers to any factor that
goes into how the player interacts with the game and their success is
determined. Putting it together, we are looking for outstanding events that
occurred while playing the game, perhaps even events that define the experience
as a whole.
In the first Gears of War, one part of the story requires
you to hold your ground at the entrance to a manor. Locust forces can only pour
in through one entrance to get at you, but you can look out a window to pick
them off before they even get there. That only works for so long until they
bring out a larger enemy which cannot be whittled down before it reaches you.
Further - I may be remembering this incorrectly - there are multiple of them at
once. Therefore this sequence requires you to pick your targets, reserve your
powerful ammunition for when you need to take down a big enemy, and position
yourself so you can take effective cover and fire back.
I was stuck in this sequence for a very long time, and I
was only playing the game on medium - medium! To be fair, the middle difficulty
is called "Hardcore" so I at least knew what I was getting into. The
strategy I employed was staying on the high ground to either side of the
entryway where the Locusts came in. I did this to stay out of the way of
rockets launched by the appropriately named Boomer enemies. But in the end, it
was always the same deal. The Boomers were able to take too many hits and they
just had to blow me up once to make me start the whole thing over. Something
had to give every time.
After taking one rocket too many, I started to evaluate
my options. I left the safety of my high ground to see what else the terrain
had to offer. The manor entryway had tables, banisters, a dual stairway leading
up, and raggedy couches. Surely, the couches were not suitable cover against
bullets and explosives. But I tried it anyway. Furthermore, I positioned myself
not to the side, but in front of the entryway. The Boomers would be able to
fire at me as soon as they got in range, but the opposite was also true. This
strategy resulted in a complete reversal. Being able to shoot as soon as I saw
the whites of the Boomers' eyes meant I could start working the Boomers down
before they even got close to the door. The Boomers fired back, but my couch
proved to be a surprisingly formidable shield. The first Boomer died before it
landed a foot in the entrance hall and the second one could only get a few
steps in.
All at once, I made use of all of Gears of War's
features. Strategy, position, cover, predicting enemy behavior, and aiming for weak
spots. This experience really drove in how much thought went into this games
design. It also makes for a good story.
My second war story skips a generation to Gears of War 3.
In particular, the game's competitive multiplayer. Just like the campaign,
multiplayer requires teams to work as a unit, collaborate on a plan, position
themselves well, take cover, pick their weapons wisely, and aim well. There is
a good variety of game modes, and my story takes place in the one called
"Capture the Leader." You run around shooting the other team, except
this time one player on both teams is designated at a leader. The leader cannot
die normally, but will be captured instead. The leader can't do anything, and
the captor moves slowly while only using a basic weapon. The goal is to keep
the opposing team's leader in the captured state for 30 seconds. Should both
leaders be captured, neither timer will go down until only one leader is being
held.
That said, boy did I have one good round. It started off
poorly with our leader taken and dragged into the enemy's half of the arena. As
I do often in these games, I died and respawned on my team's side. I had a bit
of good luck as I found a boomshot, an explosive not unlike the Boomer rockets.
My second bit of luck was seeing the enemy leader with another enemy. I suppose
they figured with all the fighting happening around my team's leader, they
could just hang out on our side where none of my team would think to look.
I sprung into action, firing a Boomshot that killed the
regular opponent and took down the leader. The opposing team's clock ticked
down 5... 4... 3... 2... and stayed at two. I picked up the enemy leader and
forced the two timers into an impasse. And since the opposing leader delivered
himself to my team's territory, I was safe while my team scrambled to free my
leader. I positioned myself well behind cover and on high ground.
Suddenly, an enemy ran by. How did he get there and why
didn't he notice me? I then realized that we were so far in the game that the
spawn points had switched. In other words, the territories had just switched,
pitting me in the enemy territory. Though it seemed that they hadn't caught on
yet. On the flip side, my team was now entering the field closer to my team's
captive leader. After some time, I heard a chime. The opponent's timer vanished
and my team's timer began to tick down. That was good, but I was still in their
territory and my team was still picking itself up after saving the leader.
Finally, one of the opponents thinks to look up the ramp
in his new spawn and sure enough must have caught a glimpse of me. He doesn't
have a direct line of sight, so his only option is to get up close and smack me
down. He even tosses up a smoke grenade, which fills my screen with white and
gray and no trace of his approach. While I hold the opposing leader, I can't
use any of the "good" weapons, making do with just a basic pistol. If
I were to survive, I would need to find him as soon as he came through the
smoke, fire as soon as possible, and hit every one on his head. Those were a
lot of stars to align.
And yet, they did end up aligning. I saw, I aimed, I
fired, I hit. The opponent fell down and was no longer a threat. Him out of the
way, I was uncontested and finished off the leader for the win. I imagine if I opted
in for voice chat, there would have been lots of cheering to go around. If you
think that's cool, the next round is equally worth talking about. I entered the
battlefield and was immediately taken down by a shotgun point-blank. Short but
sweet.
You'll see the player's team's counter is at 30 and about to count down. The enemy has no counter because they do not have the player's leader. If the enemy leader were to get away, the player's team would have to start all the way at 30 again
Now that we have these anecdotes, what does this mean for
our elusive "story of the gameplay?" My friends, I believe we are
onto something. The game is built and designed in such a way that you can have
your moments of glory with some luck and skill during typical play. Any game
can accomplish this, but I think Gears of War has this very concept in mind. When
I think about "typical" game flow, I think about the game introducing
its concepts and mechanics, building a player's skill with coasting
low-intensity tasks, and then testing those skills against a challenging boss
enemy or stage.
Gears of War is different. The game has its mechanics -
aiming, reloading, taking fire, running, dodging, etc. - but most problems are
not solved alone by practice. You need tactical smarts. You need to know when
to apply pressure or when to fall back. You need to recognize a good vantage
point where you'll be safe and have a good view of the enemy. You need to know
when you're outnumbered and a frag grenade will even those numbers. You need to
recognize opportunities to get at your enemy's sides or back. You need to
assess if the situation is clear enough for the rest of your team to charge in
and control more of the battlefield. You need to think like a soldier and not
just know how to use their weapons and abilities.
This game invites war stories because of how it isn't won
by "playing hard," and that is where the story of the gameplay comes
in. This game is designed in such a way that every moment, decision, and small
victory is imbued with a sense of importance. My experience playing this game
stuck with me because the way each skirmish played out was as a result of my
skill and knowledge. It was hardly ever cut-and-dry how I was going to stop the
advancing enemy or force my way into a stronghold. Because this game felt so
significant, I can remember all of these events in such vivid detail. The story
of the gameplay is not something told by the game, but instead something lived
out and told later by the player. No game can guarantee that every player will
have their own story of the gameplay, but games like Gears of War sure promote
it by engaging the player's tactical thinking.
So Cliff, and Epic Games by extension, whether or not "the story of the
gameplay" is a real thing, your game is robust and carefully crafted enough
for me to make my own definition. Cheers!
Another game I have stories for days is Bravely Default. Trying out new class combinations makes for riveting conversation. Anyone else feeling deja vu?
And you know what, I like this concept. Making a game so
noteworthy to play that you could make a story out of it is a noble endeavor
and a mark of true effort. This got me thinking in a broader sense. If we can
make stories of out typical play in a video game, what else in our lives can we
make stories about that we otherwise would think are not that noteworthy? Is
your job more interesting than you may give it credit for? Could you form a
story around a meeting or a task you took on? Do you play a sport? Did you
witness an amazing play or take part in one yourself? Do you exercise? Is the
reason you exercise interesting? Did you dig deep in your own mind to find the
will and courage to exercise? Perhaps someone would be entertained and even
motivated by hearing it.
Or maybe, just maybe - and I won't imply this is the
absolute truth for a moment - you know that your life could be more interesting.
Any life could be more interesting. I sure know that's true for my life. This
added interest could come in the form of the aforementioned sports, exercise,
hobbies, groups, community involvement, and so many more. This discussion was
inspired by an Abstruse Goose comic in which the author addresses the concept of
a noteworthy day. On an August 4th night, he climbed a pyramid structure and broke
his foot on the way down. To quote the comic, "Now I bet you're thinking
that climbing a pyramid, screaming 'I Tony Montanta', and breaking my foot was
a pretty stupid way to spend the night. But I'll also bet that you don't
remember what you did on August 4.'
So just like I would ask myself, "Can I remember
what it was like to play Gears of War?" I should also be asking myself,
"Can I remember what I did on April 24th?" I like the idea of working
within my means to make every day significant. Even just a little more so.
No comments:
Post a Comment