Ludonarrative dissonance sucks - it takes you right out of a game and makes you feel like you're in a constant struggle against the story and the mechanics. The story might be fluid, dynamic and engrossing and the mechanics might be the best thing you've ever played in your gaming life, but when put together (like pizza wrapped around ice cream) it just makes you very uncomfortable and sick to your stomach.
Well, maybe I'm overblowing it a little bit but there's definitely a few games I've played where I've had a fun time but it didn't feel like it worked well together. Two of the most major examples I've come across in recent memory was Grand Theft Auto IV and Bioshock: Infinite. While they were big budget games that garnered a lot of marketing hype and critical acclaim (and, to a certain extent, the results are certainly pleasing) they both suffered from a very poor use of the relationship between narrative and gameplay. Bioshock: Infinite for example, puts the players in the shoes of Booker DeWitt who is tasked with the mission of travelling to the floating city of Colombia to rescue a girl trapped by the city's leader, aptly named the Prophet. While the story dabbles in the philosophy of racism, time travel, alternate universes and the like, the gameplay is broken up mainly with frantic first person shooting in arena styled set pieces. It feels flimsy that a game about time travel and parallel dimensions features such basic mechanics for their gameplay, especially when there could be so much more used. It also makes the game feel a lot more drawn out when players have to shoot the same kind of enemy to advance the plot.
Grand Theft Auto IV is more of a personal thing for me, as I had anticipated it in 2008 with baited breath. Seeing all the reviews about how awesome it was and how it would redefine the open sandbox genre as we knew - Grand Theft Auto San Andreas ranks as my number one favourite game of all time, so I had it in my mind that this would top that. The result, while spectacular in its own right, fell flat right from the start with it's main character, Niko Bellic. Now, Rockstar had dabbled with sympathetic characters before - Carl Johnson of San Andreas is one of these examples. But the difference between him and Niko Bellic is that while Carl wishes to not turn to a life of crime to get by, Niko is almost contradictory. He does not want to commit crimes. He does not want to do all these horrible things. He just wants to live somewhere stable and easy. Fair enough goal, but this is Grand Theft Auto, the game that defined mayhem in an open world. While the mechanics for this sort of mayhem is still there, the story is pushed more to the forefront this time around - Hollywood production values are seeping out of every pore of the story with Niko rising from the slums of Bohan to conquering Algonquin and New Alderney, running various jobs for several gang bosses and also trying to uncover who had betrayed him so long ago. Sounds good on paper, but the story meanders for far too long, does not allow the player any motive of freedom and feels insistent to shove forced tutorials into the missions proper instead of allowing you to freely roam Liberty City at your own pace.
Of course, I could go on for far too long about how I think Niko is a despicable and unlikeable character with no development through the very long story but I believe that would pay homage to the mechanics of Grand Theft Auto - an unlikeable character doing awful things is the name of the game. It's when the game decides to restrict us and insist that he is a good guy is when the game falls flat.
Well, maybe I'm overblowing it a little bit but there's definitely a few games I've played where I've had a fun time but it didn't feel like it worked well together. Two of the most major examples I've come across in recent memory was Grand Theft Auto IV and Bioshock: Infinite. While they were big budget games that garnered a lot of marketing hype and critical acclaim (and, to a certain extent, the results are certainly pleasing) they both suffered from a very poor use of the relationship between narrative and gameplay. Bioshock: Infinite for example, puts the players in the shoes of Booker DeWitt who is tasked with the mission of travelling to the floating city of Colombia to rescue a girl trapped by the city's leader, aptly named the Prophet. While the story dabbles in the philosophy of racism, time travel, alternate universes and the like, the gameplay is broken up mainly with frantic first person shooting in arena styled set pieces. It feels flimsy that a game about time travel and parallel dimensions features such basic mechanics for their gameplay, especially when there could be so much more used. It also makes the game feel a lot more drawn out when players have to shoot the same kind of enemy to advance the plot.
Grand Theft Auto IV is more of a personal thing for me, as I had anticipated it in 2008 with baited breath. Seeing all the reviews about how awesome it was and how it would redefine the open sandbox genre as we knew - Grand Theft Auto San Andreas ranks as my number one favourite game of all time, so I had it in my mind that this would top that. The result, while spectacular in its own right, fell flat right from the start with it's main character, Niko Bellic. Now, Rockstar had dabbled with sympathetic characters before - Carl Johnson of San Andreas is one of these examples. But the difference between him and Niko Bellic is that while Carl wishes to not turn to a life of crime to get by, Niko is almost contradictory. He does not want to commit crimes. He does not want to do all these horrible things. He just wants to live somewhere stable and easy. Fair enough goal, but this is Grand Theft Auto, the game that defined mayhem in an open world. While the mechanics for this sort of mayhem is still there, the story is pushed more to the forefront this time around - Hollywood production values are seeping out of every pore of the story with Niko rising from the slums of Bohan to conquering Algonquin and New Alderney, running various jobs for several gang bosses and also trying to uncover who had betrayed him so long ago. Sounds good on paper, but the story meanders for far too long, does not allow the player any motive of freedom and feels insistent to shove forced tutorials into the missions proper instead of allowing you to freely roam Liberty City at your own pace.
Of course, I could go on for far too long about how I think Niko is a despicable and unlikeable character with no development through the very long story but I believe that would pay homage to the mechanics of Grand Theft Auto - an unlikeable character doing awful things is the name of the game. It's when the game decides to restrict us and insist that he is a good guy is when the game falls flat.