Func_Msgboard: Giving A Shit - Hooks, Attachment, And Involvement In Games.

Giving A Shit - Hooks, Attachment, And Involvement In Games.

Posted by Shambler on 2011/11/21 22:22:43

Inspired by Skyrim but very much not limited to that.

I've been thinking recently about how games get the player involved, attached to their character and the characters they interact with, and what sort of hooks are used to get the player gripped and intruiged.

In my view this is something that games don't do that well, even when they mistakenly think they are - the main problems being developers confusing above-average stories with remotely good stories, and assuming that transparently shallow emotional attachments will actually work.

I think there are 3 main areas that can get the player to give a shit about what they are doing in a game:

1. Setting / theme / setup. Not just the game world but what is going on in the game world. Something that is either convincingly portrayed and/or refreshingly innovative and/or suitably intriguing to get the player wanting to be involved with it.

2. Other characters. Rarely applicable to traditional FPSes although some background characters can be important. In modern, more involved games, having characters that have some depth or interest to them (not via cheesily blatant mysteries) and/or also stand out from the humdrum of the other characters around them and/or ones that the player is directly and intimately involved with.

3. Story. A revealed progression through the game that gets the player intrigued as to what will happen next, that is interesting enough that they actually want to find out. Rarely an issue as all gaming stories are generic shite. But if there is ever the slightest hint of not being entirely mundane and predictable, that can be a good thing.

So considering some games with prominent aspects of these that I've played recently and not so recently:

Half-Life 2 - scores well on 1 with a strong set-up and convincing portrayal, and on 2 with some average but likable characters. Little on 3.

Gothic 3 - scores very well on 1 with a strong game world and a strong theme with an existent Orc invasion. Bugger all on 2 and 3.

Left 4 Dead / 2 - scores on 1 with an obvious but well set up scenario, and on 2 with characters who are....bland but you are totally involved with. No 3.

Bioshock - scores well on 1 and a bit on 3 as well, and a bit on 2 because there is some involvement in the supporting characters.

Dead Space 2 - scores on 2 with the Ellie character who comes across as refreshingly free of bullshit and "emotion on a plate". A bit on 1, 3 is mundane as usual.

Rage - scores on 1 but mostly because the world is so stylishly done. 2 and 3 bollox.

And conversely, considering recent RPGs:

DXHR - scores a bit on 1 but only because the world is stylish and has some theme with augmentations. Scores bugger all on 2 mostly because Jensen has anti-personality. Little on 3 in the post-X-files world.

Skyrim - scores little on 1 as it's a completely standard fantasy world, only dragons being novel, little on 2 at least initially as the characters are generic fantasy as it comes (might improve with one's companion), and little on 3 again as it's so generic (the story being exactly the sort of thing I skim on the back of a fantasy novel and immediately put it back on the shelf rolling my eyes).

So...my conclusions are that some sort of on-going scenario in the game world set-up and some direct involvement with a few characters are working well in gaming....and as for the story it's probably a lost cause...

Discuss (tm Smables 200x)

First | Previous | Next | Last

The First Map I Ever Released

#26 posted by Drew on 2011/11/23 03:42:17

was available on the SKC club at planethalflife.com

I liked killing scientists.

First | Previous | Next | Last

You must be logged in to post in this thread.