Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Polpolion on February 06, 2007, 06:10:10 pm

Title: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Polpolion on February 06, 2007, 06:10:10 pm
You can only rarely seem to have excellent quantities of both in a game. Without replayability, the game gets old after the fist few playthroughs, unless it's a non-linear game or just really in-depth. But without plot, well, it just gets... tedious.

What would you prefer to have in a game?


Personally, I would like plot. I just can't seem to be able to play games that nothing really happens in (there are exceptions, though).
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: IPAndrews on February 06, 2007, 06:11:57 pm
I've done plot. Replayability next time. Oh wait wrong forum we're not talking FS campaigns. Well I'd still go with replayability, with a little bit of plot. I thiink you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned non-linear earlier. If something is non-linear but detailed enough then who needs a plot. May I present Rome Total War as exhibit A. Every game is different but no game progresses in a random fashion. Plot and replayability. Win, win scenario.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Ulala on February 06, 2007, 06:23:06 pm
I think it depends on the person, really. I'm all about plot, and I'm all about replayability. However, I find that some of my friends, even my girlfriend, don't find replayability to be important, or even existant really. For example, say I beat Mario64 with 70-some stars. I play through it some more and eventually get all 120. Or Chrono Trigger. Or even Zelda for SNES. I've played through it multiple times now, but each time it's still decently challenging, yet fun, and just recently I finally acquired all of the hearts and beat all the little ruppee games, etc, something I hadn't done before. Even Twilight Princess, I burned through that game so fast.. I just had to know how the plot unfolded, so I didn't bother with fishing, mini games, etc.. I just beat it. I'm looking forward to playing through again and enjoying the great plot (granted, I know what happens now), but also doing things I haven't done before. Replayability. My friends on the other hand, they watched me finish Zelda, and now they're not even interested in finishing the games they've started and they're half way through! They don't feel like finishing it because they know what happens, and they say if they finished a game, they wouldn't bother playing it again. It's beyond me.  :confused:

Anyway, I voted for plot, because it truly is important. Otherwise, I can't really get into a game long-term.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 06, 2007, 06:25:00 pm
Plot makes for replayability.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Polpolion on February 06, 2007, 06:34:54 pm
I thiink you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned non-linear earlier. If something is non-linear but detailed enough then who needs a plot.

Non-linear games are the best. You can have a very immersive plot, and with multiple play paths, you can replay it with it being relatively fresh three or four times.

Of course, the trouble with those, is that is that you can't make a sequel. I mean, just look at Deus Ex: Invisible war. The first game was EXCELLENT, but my gosh, how they MURDERED it (even thought a good portions of the bad stuff was the UI and gameplay, not the plot, imho)!!!!
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: phatosealpha on February 06, 2007, 06:55:20 pm
Re playability by far.  A replayable game, is by necessity, one that plays well the first time.  Plot, on the other hand, is just a justification tacked on to give me a reason to do cool stuff, and if the stuff I'm doing is fun, it's unnecessary.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Eishtmo on February 06, 2007, 07:02:56 pm
Non-linear games, however, often present a watered down quality over their more linear brothers.  Instead of the writers and developers focusing on the main plot and gameplay, they're scattered all over doing mini-quests and alternate paths.  It can weaken the game as a whole when you see some parts being more refined than others.  I'd rather a stronger central plot than a lot of weak lines you can follow.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Mars on February 06, 2007, 07:09:39 pm
I find that plot is the basis for re-playability, Homesick is very re-playable for me for example.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: DrewToby on February 06, 2007, 07:27:54 pm
I'd love a balance between the two, but if I had to go for one, I'd say a nice and twisty plot. One that, if you play back through again, you can clearly see all the hints and tips to the twists that you missed the first time around. Nice *facepalm* moments, those, like in KotOR and Jade Empire.

For me, at least. Maybe I'm a bit dull. *cough*
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Goober5000 on February 06, 2007, 07:36:19 pm
Non-linear games, however, often present a watered down quality over their more linear brothers.  Instead of the writers and developers focusing on the main plot and gameplay, they're scattered all over doing mini-quests and alternate paths.  It can weaken the game as a whole when you see some parts being more refined than others.  I'd rather a stronger central plot than a lot of weak lines you can follow.
QFT.  I never finished the first chapter of Baldur's Gate because I got annoyed at how many side quests there were.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Deepblue on February 06, 2007, 07:37:29 pm
I would have said plot makes replayability not too long ago. Then I got addicted to the Crackdown demo. There is no plot to speak of, only a huge world that you can do a bunch of awesome crap in.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Polpolion on February 06, 2007, 08:28:20 pm
By non-linear I didn't mean side quests, I meant stuff like multiple endings. I don't mean multiple endings where you can choose at the end no matter what your previous actions, I mean like the endings branch out in the middle of the game.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: redsniper on February 06, 2007, 08:55:47 pm
Plot makes for replayability.
Seconded. I think the Metal Gear Solid games are a good example of this. Granted, they aren't completely linear; there are different ways to get through every area and fight every boss, but they certainly aren't open-ended games. You basically just sneak and fight your way from cutscene to cutscene and that's okay. I think just the story and atmosphere are enough to make them replayable.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Mongoose on February 06, 2007, 09:22:30 pm
By non-linear I didn't mean side quests, I meant stuff like multiple endings. I don't mean multiple endings where you can choose at the end no matter what your previous actions, I mean like the endings branch out in the middle of the game.
I've always really disliked the concept of non-linear games for this very reason.  (As a kid, I completely despised those "choose your own adventure" books; I kept going back and reading every little possible option before trying to move on. :p)  I'd infinitely rather play through a carefully-crafted storyline, being led along by the writers, than just cast out on my own, trying to figure out which of twenty quests/story threads I want to follow.  (Incidentally, this is the same reason why I'd never consider playing a trading-based space game, but that's another story.)  I freely admit that I have nary a creative bone in my body, but that's fine by me; I'd much rather be told a story than help make it myself.

I also fully agree with ngtm1r; to me, knowing every detail of what happens in the plot of the game doesn't affect its replayability in the slightest.  Hell, every single time I restart FS1 or FS2, even though (at least for the first game) I can practically lay out exactly what happens in every mission, I still find that same old familiar excitement washing over me, and I'm still enthralled by the developing story.  The same goes for any of the newer Zelda titles, Resident Evil 4, or any other game that hooks you in from the beginning and takes you on an amazing ride.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Sarafan on February 06, 2007, 10:15:39 pm
I go for plot but its entirely possible to have both in one game. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 is a example were you have both a great main plot and many good side quests (wich are there for a reason not just for being there to waste your time) wich ensure its replayability.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: spartan_0214 on February 06, 2007, 10:27:15 pm
I think games should have excellent, innovative plot, but have some replayability. F.E.A.R. is a good example with its creepy, twisty plot. You could, however, go back and play the game on a harder difficulty level to have your butt kicked. Multiplayer adds a lot to replayability, especially when you get guys playing the game for a while who can totally pwn your sorry n00b butt. Also, open-source games like FS2 and Halo: Custom Edition also add a lot of replayability. But I digress. The best part, IMHO, of a game is the plot. If the game doesn't have a good plot it doesn't find its way onto my shelf. Halo has an excellent plot, FS2 has an excellent plot, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has an excellent plot, etc. Overall, if a game's got good plot, it's a good game right there. But, what makes an excellent game is replayability. The three greatest things that make me want to play a game over and over again are:

1) An extremely hard difficulty level. Most of the reason I replay a game is to see if I can beat the game on the hardest difficulty level. Both Halo 2 and FS2 take the cake on difficulty.

2) Open-Source Engine. Gearbox and Bungie released Halo Custom Edition to the PC Gaming community. Dark Hunter and I both love to play the custom maps made for Halo because it adds to a game we already love and desire to play as much as we can. Freespace 2 was Open-Source as well, and you guys can see how well that did for Freespace's replayability.

3) Ironically, the plot. I love hearing, and as Dark Hunter will attest, memorizing game lines. And it's fun to see the characters go those cool moments we all know, love, and obsess over (at least I do, right Hunter?). A good plot will actually have me playing the game on easier levels, after I've beaten the hardest level, to try different tactics and see how the plot differs.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: phatosealpha on February 06, 2007, 10:47:12 pm
Non-linear games, however, often present a watered down quality over their more linear brothers.  Instead of the writers and developers focusing on the main plot and gameplay, they're scattered all over doing mini-quests and alternate paths.  It can weaken the game as a whole when you see some parts being more refined than others.  I'd rather a stronger central plot than a lot of weak lines you can follow.

I'd rather they just make the core game system fun.  Even if every quest, side or non, comes to to 'go here, beat up dude, come back', if the underlying gameplay system is strong, it will be fun every time.  If that's not working very well......high drama ain't gonna make a math flash cards game replayable.



Do any of the plot people have games they've replayed just for the plot, even when actually disliking the core gameplay? 



Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: spartan_0214 on February 06, 2007, 10:54:05 pm
/\ - Check Above Post - /\
||                              ||
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: phatosealpha on February 06, 2007, 11:07:51 pm
Which of those games do you propose had bad core gameplay?
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: brandx0 on February 06, 2007, 11:21:03 pm
Part of the problem of most non-linear games is that the choices for different endings are so obvious "you can either do this or this..."

It feels somewhat forced when you play a game and hit those points.  I'm voting for plot myself, I can still go back and play my final fantasy games again because of the plot contained within.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: redsniper on February 07, 2007, 01:21:57 am
Do any of the plot people have games they've replayed just for the plot, even when actually disliking the core gameplay? 
Well, neither plot nor open-ended replayability will save a game if it just sucks. :p
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 07, 2007, 08:21:26 am
Do any of the plot people have games they've replayed just for the plot, even when actually disliking the core gameplay? 

A couple. Not many. Consider that it would be rare to see very much of the plot when you dislike the core gameplay and it's obvious. The only one that immediately comes to mind is Homeworld 2. Doubtless there are more amidst the vast quantity of games I have floating around.

However you're missing the existence of the large "meh" quality gameplay and good plot category.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Ransom on February 07, 2007, 09:52:13 am
Plot.

Do any of the plot people have games they've replayed just for the plot, even when actually disliking the core gameplay?
A good number of the games I've replayed fall under this category. The MGS titles, for instance, I have far more fun watching the cutscenes than actually playing. But I think this is mainly just because I'm not much of a gamer.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: phatosealpha on February 07, 2007, 05:49:22 pm
Do any of the plot people have games they've replayed just for the plot, even when actually disliking the core gameplay? 

A couple. Not many. Consider that it would be rare to see very much of the plot when you dislike the core gameplay and it's obvious. The only one that immediately comes to mind is Homeworld 2. Doubtless there are more amidst the vast quantity of games I have floating around.

However you're missing the existence of the large "meh" quality gameplay and good plot category.

I'm aware of those games.  I was asking more out of curiousity, since I noticed one of the above posters listing RE4 but not RE1-3.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: fsi.scsi on February 07, 2007, 05:55:46 pm
I actually replayed StarCraft and Brood Wars for the plot after I beat them.

And then I got text dumps off the Internet to reread all the dialogue  :D
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Nuke on February 07, 2007, 09:16:19 pm
youl want to play a game with a good plot more than once. rpgs are too redundant dispite having some big environments. fpses are all the same, space/flight/mech sims are all dead (a shame they were my favs), rtses, still waiting on starcraft 2. infact im so bored with the modern array of games that i think im gonna take my 8800 into the back yard and burn it.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on February 07, 2007, 10:18:09 pm
I don't like non-linear plots because I don't want to have to slog through hours of boring and previously played plot until I get to one point where I can get a slightly different ending. Tales of Symphonia had an awesome plot, but it just wasn't worth playing again to get the other ending.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Roanoke on February 08, 2007, 07:49:56 am
Gameplay.



If you want plot read a book  ;)
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Flipside on February 08, 2007, 08:00:52 am
Thing is about a plot, is that there has to be a 'showdown' and some kind of conclusion to it. Plots add a lot more depth to a game, but can also cripple it. I can only really think of two ways of dealing with that problem, the first is to do what X3, which was make the plot happen inside an 'active' universe, the second is to take the MMO route and provide continuous updates.

Must admit, Gameplay will always come first, good plot and no gameplay is far harder to play than good gameplay and no plot, after all, look at Tetris, Pac-Man, Warning Forever etc,

I suppose it would seem odd that I like RPGs having said that, but I suppose they fall into the 'X3' bracket, as in you have an active environment to play in, and the story takes place in it, but is not essential to that environment.

I will admit, however, that plot can make a game a lot better, but I think Replayability and simple 'fun-ness' will always be first for me :)
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Blaise Russel on February 08, 2007, 02:37:28 pm
I'm interested in games as (becoming) an art form, with messages and meaning and actual story-telling depth, so it's plot for me.

Quote
Must admit, Gameplay will always come first, good plot and no gameplay is far harder to play than good gameplay and no plot, after all, look at Tetris, Pac-Man, Warning Forever etc,

What I'm waiting for is for the industry to finally integrate gameplay and story, so that there isn't this (ultimately unnecessary) divide being 'the game' and 'the fluff'. Games shouldn't be designed around having 'gaming bits' and 'story time' but should wrap them up and bundle them together so that the actual gameplay tells the story, which is far more effective than reading a block of text between episodes in Doom or whatever.

To pick a ridiculous example: Tetris as a metaphor for the futility and inevitable entropy of life that is nevertheless predicated on construction, creation and organisation. That kinda thing.

Quote
QFT.  I never finished the first chapter of Baldur's Gate because I got annoyed at how many side quests there were.

Baldur's Gate is linear.  :confused:  I can, however (I think) empathise with the feeling of being paralysed by freedom. The beginning of Fallout left me thinking "so what now?"
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Roanoke on February 10, 2007, 03:37:32 pm
I think a poor story can be overcome (let's face it we've had enough practice at doing so) but poor gameplay will kill a game.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on February 18, 2007, 08:18:02 am
What I'm waiting for is for the industry to finally integrate gameplay and story, so that there isn't this (ultimately unnecessary) divide being 'the game' and 'the fluff'. Games shouldn't be designed around having 'gaming bits' and 'story time' but should wrap them up and bundle them together so that the actual gameplay tells the story, which is far more effective than reading a block of text between episodes in Doom or whatever.

i.e. FreeSpace 2, hmm? For example, the Sathanas emerging from the wreckage of the Knossos, Bosch escaping past the Colossus, the first use of the ETAK device?

I understand what you mean. The problem is, in FreeSpace 2 at least, the player may not be facing the right direction during a relatively small event, and in other games it may otherwise be easy to miss, leaving the player unsatisfied. I'm all for plot/gameplay integration, but only if it's well pulled off.[/awkward phrasing]
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Fineus on February 18, 2007, 09:54:54 am
What I'm waiting for is for the industry to finally integrate gameplay and story, so that there isn't this (ultimately unnecessary) divide being 'the game' and 'the fluff'.
While it depends on the genre, I daresay this is already being done in some ways. In Half Life 2 Episode 1, if you use the "commentary" function, you'll notice that the developers went to great lengths to draw the players attention to certain features in the game which told the story. So if you actively tried to avoid them it was possible to play through and not pick up much storyline, but for the most part it was put right infront of you for you to realise "hey, I'm playing the game and it's telling me the story".
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Blaise Russel on February 19, 2007, 05:39:43 am
i.e. FreeSpace 2, hmm? For example, the Sathanas emerging from the wreckage of the Knossos, Bosch escaping past the Colossus, the first use of the ETAK device?

What? No, that's not what I mean at all. That's almost exactly the same as the Doom text dumps, just with pictures and sounds.

(It's not much, but) what I mean is something like what happened during the last part of Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Godsmack and metal thongs aside, I really appreciated the segment of the game where the Prince, as the Sandwraith, must travel through the Isle of Time in order to intercept his past self before he can screw up the past again and lock him into a timeline where he is doomed to die.

Throughout the game you've been travelling freely throughout the hub-based Fortress, going back and forth between the various towers, returning to places you've already been to pick up special powers and new upgrades and whatnot. Because it's hub based, getting from one place to the other is pretty quick and easy; as such, it should be no problem for the Sandwraith Prince to get to the Throne Room before his past self does.

Except that it's not that easy. As the Sandwraith, you're constantly forced into following a path that leads you away from the hub and away from the Throne Room. The Central Hall is inaccessible because the bridges aren't aligned; on your way back to try another route, the Dahaka, agent of fate and chief antagonist, pops up and throws you down a well; you reach the Sacrificial Altar, but you're stuck in the rafters with no way down to the main path; the Gatehouse, easily traversable in the present, is solidly barred in the past; you reach the Library, but the Dahaka shows up (again) and chases you into a series of mystic caves.

All the while, you're (re)encountering events you saw when you were playing as your past self in the first half of the game. Each and every time, events pass as they did before, coming a little bit closer to dooming your effort to change the past and your fate. 'Random' chance and happenstance seem to conspire to railroad you into fulfilling your fate - dying at the hands of the Dahaka.

Do you see what I'm talking about? Sure, simple level design tells me "you're going to all these new places because it's the last segment of the game and we need new content to excite you". However, this merges with a higher game design principle to become something more. The change from free, short-length, hub-based, (sort of) non-linear gaming in the first two-thirds/three-quarters of the game to the linear, circuitous track that you follow in the last segment really emphasises, in my view, the desperation of the Prince's fight against the inevitability of fate.

It's beyond just having Alyx or Breen in the game with you, talking and acting on screen... it's a meta-game consideration, where the very design of the game itself reinforces the message that the developers want to put forth. That's what makes games different from 'interactive movies' or what-have-you; that is where the potential of games to be even greater story-tellers than books or cinema lies. Now, Warrior Within doesn't take it far enough, or even very far at all, but it's still going places that I want to be.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on September 07, 2007, 06:37:30 am
Do you see what I'm talking about? Sure, simple level design tells me "you're going to all these new places because it's the last segment of the game and we need new content to excite you". However, this merges with a higher game design principle to become something more. The change from free, short-length, hub-based, (sort of) non-linear gaming in the first two-thirds/three-quarters of the game to the linear, circuitous track that you follow in the last segment really emphasises, in my view, the desperation of the Prince's fight against the inevitability of fate.

It's beyond just having Alyx or Breen in the game with you, talking and acting on screen... it's a meta-game consideration, where the very design of the game itself reinforces the message that the developers want to put forth. That's what makes games different from 'interactive movies' or what-have-you; that is where the potential of games to be even greater story-tellers than books or cinema lies. Now, Warrior Within doesn't take it far enough, or even very far at all, but it's still going places that I want to be.

I guess. But the thing is, that final segment is linear and scripted. That's as close as an interactive movie as you can get. I assume that your summary is more powerful than the game could have been, and I have to admit, that's a pretty cool way to tie it all together, but not all games can have a story based around the illusion of free will, now can they? That topic is essentially the highest philosophical question of all.

But I see what you mean. Instead of seeing the Iceni escape, you want to try to stop the Iceni, and fail. You want Command to fruitlessly pretend to pursue it. You want to see more effects of Command's secret protection of the Iceni, like ships pulled from blockades actually participating in gameplay, or a ship receiving orders to leave and go help a Shivan conflict somewhere else, and seeing that happen. You want to see story have an effect on gameplay, not just hook missions together.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: CP5670 on September 07, 2007, 09:29:35 am
:wtf:

I don't think he will notice your response. This thread is over six months old. :p
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: spartan_0214 on September 07, 2007, 09:07:31 pm
Wow, and I thought I was bad...


:necro:
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Polpolion on September 07, 2007, 09:48:56 pm
You are bad. You necro'd a four year old thread, this was like 7 months. Besides, this is a good thread, and it gave me another idea.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: spartan_0214 on September 07, 2007, 09:52:24 pm
My excuse: the threads were named almost exactly the same. The other thread was just as good.
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Dark Hunter on September 07, 2007, 10:29:31 pm
Spartan used a Necro Beam... how ironic.  :lol:
Title: Re: Replayability or plot?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on September 09, 2007, 05:44:53 pm
:wtf:

I don't think he will notice your response. This thread is over six months old. :p

Yeah, well...