PC Gamer Editorial - "less story is more immersive&quot

Click here and disable ads!

If given a choice between a game that has limited but extremely well-implemented choices of action and one that has many poorly-implemented ones, I'd choose the former gladly, except when it comes to RPG's.

In that case, I'd demand a patch.

WHAT BULLSHIT IS THIS?

WC had a campaign mod, fuck up and you get thrown into the losing mission ends.

WC III even goes farther by making decisions over what ship to fly and its loadout, also there are divergent missions that you are thrown in if you succeed in your missions or have failed.

WC IV is even FUCKING BETTER as you can stick with ConFed until the bitter end (and will end) or go Border Worlds and them having to make some decisions over that will impact what missions, weapons and even ships are available to use.

WC was shit.

Motherfucker never played Wing Commander, at least a PROPER Wing Commander (must played Prophecy) as they are *gasp* STORY DRIVEN were if you are just flying the missions ... YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!! And in III and IV you have even OPTIONS.

GOD DAMN IT, I MAD!
MAD!

Maybe they're just trying to say "less cutscenes, more gameplay" and they just failed to express it properly. It's hard to know without reading the whole piece.

All the Wing Commanders after I are gaytarded tho.

I'm not typing the whole thing over but the gist of his editorial is that immersion is more about gameplay than story, setting or writing. His stance is that good core gameplay without the distraction of superfluous story or mechanics is how you achieve true immersion in the game world.

He does not mention Mass Effect 2, but I think a great example of his theory would be that Mass Effect 2 is more immersive than Mass Effect because it removes the driving segments, the inventory and most of the stats. By boiling the game itself down to its core component, shooting dudes, it became more immersive. It would be even more immersive if it removed the superfluous talking and story.

That is what I get out of it.

What if there are many nicely implemented ones?
What if choices are limited and poorly implemented?

Jeez man

WIng Commander is godlike.

Also, maybe TEH IMMERSIVENESS doesn't make a good game.

Do I imagine myself to be TNO in PS:T? Hell no! But I like experiencing the vast and deep story.

I remember someone telling me "Fallout 3 doesn't need dialogue or item descriptions because you can make your own story from the scenery". Fuck that, I'm not playing CSI: Wasteland. I want to be *told* a tale, not have to experience a half-assed implication.

I think that line has been misinterpreted.

In Mass Effect Commander Shepard does everything from helping barmaids to negotiating trade deals with merchants, when all he should be doing in saving the damn galaxy. I do think he is taking issues with having option I think he is taking issues with the bevy of nonsensical option players are often given in modern games (RPGSs in specific). Why is my character in Oblivion working for the thieves guild and spending all day in the arena when there are literally gates to hell all over the place, shouldn't they take precedent? It starts to feel silly when there is a big bag in need of slaying or the end of the world/galaxy to avert but I'm too busy finding lost data chips to notice.

I think that was what he had intended to get across.

*I'd also like to address the WC rage in this topic (Just to be clear I've only played WC4). In WC4 I had options I could choose which missions to take and in what order, I could choose to save the colonists or carry out my military objective. They we're all choices that made sense considering the main characters role. At no time did I escort random cargo or save kittens from tress.

Oh. Well then, he's clearly I guess an intelligent argument was too much to hope for.

I don't think DalekFlay has any idea what the article is actually attempting to convey and seeing as how nobody else seems to either I'm lead to believe that both the article is poorly written and that the codex has poor reading skills (which we all know is true).

This.

Was the Mass Effect 2 example present in the original article? I agree with the guy's assertion that restricting a player's role instead of giving him/her full carte blanche to run around extorting grandmas and kicking kittens can create better immersion, but in my opinion that actually makes a game more story driven, not less.

I don't get what the article is really aiming for, and I don't think I'll be able to unless we get a full transcript. Before that I'm not going to go around "herp derp author is " over a few quotes that may easily be read out of context.

I actually think I brought Mass Effect into this discussion. I was only using it as an example because I think it best illustrates how too much choice (bad choice mind you) can hurt the story/immersion/whatever. Less certainly is more when it means less taking time out from saving the galaxy to help old ladies across the street and more time making choices and taking actions toward the actual goal.

I though the author chose his words well when he said that it constantly feels like Shepard is having an intervention with every person he comes across (not an exact quote).

Scans or GTFO.

No, the Mass Effect 2 example is not in the article, he compares Mass Effect to Wing Commander as I quoted above. I'm not claiming 100% understanding of it either, I'm more trying to get at what he is saying through Codex help and opinion.

The core of it is definitely that gameplay creates immersion, not story, open-worlds or choice. Of that core point there is no doubt.

I'll see about copying the whole thing, it's really not that long.

Re: PC Gamer Editorial - "less story is more immersive&

Ah crap, guess I should have read it instead of skimmed it....Your right I think Draq

It's better to have focus if you aren't all that talented. For example : A talented studio can make a RPG/Strategy/Tactical game work so that the parts fit seamlessly together and none of them feel like annoying distractions, or filler.
A mediocre studio couldn't balance it out and would probably make some stuff suck so that when you get to those parts you're pissed and think you're wasting your time as the game suddenly stopped being fun.

Mass Effect is a pretty good example, it's inventory management is tedious and doesn't add anything to the game, the minigames are tedious, the driving doesn't make any sense at all as you're driving in the middle of nowhere searching for minerals (what are you, a miner?) and it sucks too, and so on. ME2 had less which makes it better as you aren't so often bogged down in shit you hate doing.

Yet another example would be JA2, where everything fits perfectly together, or so I think. Perhaps I'm not immersed in it, I don't know, but it draws me in and I'm having fun, blasting away at some banana nation crap soldiers with my kickass mercenary squads.

An action game with mostly shooting, but added variety of well done stealth sections is nice, but I'm sure everybody has played more the kind of action games where the stealth sucks balls and you're frustrated having to do that shit and you're wondering if this would have been a good game if the developers had realized that they don't know shit about stealth gameplay.

Codex was founded by Storyfags for Storyfags. Dungeon Crawler Codex had a minimal presence until 2009, some guy was even dumbfucked for saying Arcanum had no gameplay.

...but now we consider Jagged Alliance 2 an RPG?!? I though it couldn't be an RPG because laptop guy doesn't have any stats or because it's too combat based. I just don't know anymore. I saw most RPGs and the evolution of table top wargames first and foremost with all the story and C&C as icing on the cake.

Tetris is the most immersive game of all time

Updated the original post with the full article.

I do think some people were right, like Topher, in that I was not getting across the whole point. Reading it again as I typed it I found myself agreeing with it much more, and the Mass Effect 2 example held a LOT less weight.

DISCUSS AGAIN.

I think that was a poor choice of words for his last paragraph. Making you a cog in the machine tends to help the game become more story-driven, not less. You only get 'less story' in the sense that all the extraneous filler are cut, which rarely in any way impinges on the actual quality of the story itself, and in most cases even improves it.

For his point, I think it may be why ArmA is heavily praised?

Many cRPGs are party based without a BG-style main character.

It has no more combat than other cRPGs, even extremely storyfag ones. It just has good combat.

Missions can be procedurally generated. Personally, I have a dream about a wargame where you are an officer that commands a platoon or a company and you basically start out with a To&E unit, which later suffers from attrition, has elements detached or attached by the higher command, etc.
All with procedurally generated missions and events.

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think it was an RPG. I was just mentioning some of the reasons I have seen given as to why it wasn't an RPG, in support of the Codex is for "storyfags" hypothesis. I couldn't care less if it is or isn't an RPG, I just care that it's good.

The problem with discussing immersion is that everybody seems to have their own vague definition of it.