Our premise is simple: Don't try to use story to contradict everything else that the player sees and does.
It's actually a shockingly easy thing to fall into: players see the visuals and mechanics of the game and come away with a conclusion. Is it not the conclusion that we want them to have? Do we have a different narrative in mind? Quick! Send in a bit of story to tell them they have the wrong idea! WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN AND PLAYED HAS DECEIVED THEM. THE TRUE TRUTH IS WHAT THIS CONTRADICTING SNIPPET OF DIALOGUE HAS TO SAY!
Tragically, videogames, are first and foremost, a visual medium. This means that if the player sees something, they believe it. If the visuals tell the player something, it is going to be an uphill battle to convince them that things are otherwise.
If you ever find yourself trying to use the game's narrative to tell players that things are actually different from what the visuals lead them to believe, you are going against the grain of the entire medium. If my eyes tell me something, it's going to take a lot more than a hand wave and a line of dialogue to convince me otherwise.
Even stronger than this is the impact of mechanics. If the mechanics of the game tell the player something, trying to contradict it tells the player that either the mechanics don't actually matter or the story doesn't actually matter, and when story picks a fight with mechanics, mechanics wins.
"It's just a game. Players are totally used to it. It's fine that that squad mate's head explodes when he gets shot by enemies and then he pops up completely healthy when the player slaps him with a med kit. And yeah, okay, he gets shot in a cut scene in the next level and story-dies for real and no one tries to use a med kit, but players are used to that. You know, gameplay bullets and story bullets aren't really the same thing."
-Mediocrites, The Patron Devil of Ludo-narrative Dissonance
The end result is the dreaded Ludo-Narrative dissonance: a product whose gameplay and story are in complete contradiction to one another. The player is left wondering, "Did they even play their own game?"
It's not always the kiss of death. Some pretty great games have gotten away with doing this over the ages.
But why work against the fundamental elements of the medium – visuals and mechanics – when you can work with them?
Explain your mechanics. Agree with your visuals. Game story works best when it stops trying to say "No, but –" to the rest of the game and start saying "Yes, and…"
It's not football. If game plan story spend the whole time trying to tear the player's engagement out of each other's hands and run in opposite directions, that player engagement isn't going to go nearly as far.
Also, please, for the love of all that is good and noble and low-carb, choose your visuals and mechanics wisely in the first place.
...Seriously, maybe a guy's head exploding into a million pieces is not the most fantastic default animation for "Help, squad mate. I have been temporarily incapacitated and require a helping hand and an ace bandage to rejoin the fight."
Oh, and while I'm alienating the art team, MAKE SURE THAT YOUR FLINTLOCK MUSKETS ACTUALLY HAVE FLINT IN THE LOCK. SERIOUSLY, I'VE BEEN HOLDING THIS IN FOR OVER A DECADE. I'M LOOKING AT YOU, ASSASSINS CREED ROGUE!
THIS IS LIKE A CAR WITHOUT AN ENGINE! WAIT, IS THERE NOT EVEN A FRIZZEN ON THIS THING? THE WHOLE HAMMER ASSEMBLY IS JUST A LITTLE ARM THAT WAVES AROUND LIKE ONE OF THOSE GOOD LUCK CATS?! HOW DOES THE POWDER IGNITE?! THIS IS LIKE A CAR THAT'S JUST A CHAIR WITH A STEERING WHEEL AND A COUPLE OF SQUIRRELS MAKING 'VROOM VROOM' NOISES –
Hey, where did everybody go?
Comments