[Vince]

Brian Mitsoda has started his career at Black Isle, moved to Troika where he worked on Bloodlines, then to Obsidian where he was Creative Lead on Alpha Protocol. Currently, he's working on *****.

Originally, I was planning to add Brian's responses to the Roundtable interview, but he kept writing and writing, giving me no choice but to start a brand new thread.

* * *

Setting is an important RPG element. It's a foundation of a game and sometimes even a pretty good reason to play one. So, how do you create and breathe life into new worlds?

Hmm… You know, this is a tough one to answer, and it’s because I don’t think settings matter at all. I think some settings can appeal make the designer’s job a lot easier like an apocalypse scenario or alien/unfamiliar world where there is no expectation of order or society or even physics – this can be interesting, but often times it is lazy and adds to magical anything goes/lack of internal consistency design.

Some settings can make a designer’s job difficult, like real world settings. The expectations of recreating the world around us is, well, everyone knows what the real world’s like and has expectations that are impossible to faithfully recreate, not to mention the realism impacting the design.

Quite a few settings have been done to death (Tolkien fantasy, space marines in high-def warehouses, World War II) and I suppose some players want to play them because they keep making them, sometimes if only because of the setting.

Chiefly, I think you should start with a solid game idea or two and figure out what kind of setting works for it. And then you prototype the hell out of it until it is fun as a daiquiri waterslide.  In some cases, your game mechanics trump the setting. My favorite game last year was Saint’s Row 2; I’m kind of tired of the gangster/crime setting, but the game is just solid and it seems like the team tweaked missions and diversions until they were a joy to play and doled out rewards satisfactorily. When it comes to their gangster fantasy, they firmly planted their tongues in their cheeks, and set up a world where you could do things like throw yourself in front of traffic for insurance money while wearing a diving helmet and prom dress and it wouldn’t feel out of place. If the setting had been any concern at all, I never would have bought it.

What's your process, what are the steps?

My own projects – “What have I always wanted to do or what is an idea that just won’t stay gone from my head.”

Write down ideas, write up notes, figure out what the hooks are, turn it into a document that could be put into production tomorrow (or into a book for non-game stuff), put into drawer, cry a little, possibly seek the approval of strangers.

Projects for which I am not my own boss – “What do you need, do you like this, and how much time we got?”

This process never works the same way twice, and it really depends on who you’re working for/with. And a lot of times, you’re working on a licensed property, so, you know - setting’s there already. A lot of times this stuff is worked out before most of the team even starts working on it.

What are the most important setting elements, what must be done right?

Your setting must support and amplify the goals of your design.  Sometimes designers really want to work in a certain setting because they have a design idea in mind that would work really well with it. Sometimes they think a setting is “cool” and then spend three or more years of their lives trying to shoehorn a design into it. Clearly, one of these is the path of least resistance, which is generally favorable.

Usually good designs can work in multiple settings. I think generally you want the design to be helped by the setting, rather than work despite it. For example, if you’re emphasizing a serious real world setting and your human character jump kicks a tank to pieces or does battle with a telepath who can only be beaten by plugging your controller into the second slot, your “serious real world” game setting starts to become more unbelievable, and even if the mechanics are fun, you’ve undermined any authenticity you were going for.  However, solid mechanics coupled with the right setting can boost appeal. I mean, Civilization has fantastic mechanics, but the historical trappings give it context and accessibility that games with similar mechanics like Master of Magic and Master of Orion didn’t have, and they weren’t as successful (but man do I still love them). 

As with everything, if you want your setting to be somewhat intriguing, be consistent. If you’re doing a realistic cop game and three-thirds through you introduce enemy magic robots and civil war ghosts, you not only impact the fun some of the players derived from taking down criminals, but you totally succeed in destroying the player’s feeling that they’re Dirty Harry, Jimmy McNulty, or even Abe Vigoda as Detective Fish.  Similarly, if you were playing a Madden game and the opposing team summoned Bahamut, it kind of ruins the feeling that you’re coaching an NFL football team.

Your setting should enforce a mood and give some logical boundaries for the world, and if possible, some justification for your character’s motivations. For example, in System Shock, the mood is isolation, imprisonment, horror. Player’s motivation? Everyone’s dead, no one’s coming any time soon to help you way out on a space station, and the AI will kill you (and human life as we know it) if you sit around and play Wing Commander on your cybernetic interface.  Featuring a very novel setting, Bully has a 15-year old kid new to a private school as a protagonist, so of course, you live in a dorm, you form relationships with the various cliques, and the “missions” are structured around classes and classic teenage hijinks as the main character progresses through the school year.

And settings can have different gameplay expectations – pick one and go with it. Example – ninjas have a reputation for being both unseen and extremely deadly. Both Tenchu (some of them) and Ninja Gaiden both do the ninja setting well, except one takes the path of ninjas should neither be seen nor heard, and the other goes for the ninjas should be seen covered in the viscera of their enemies and foretold by the distant screams of a thousand scrubs.  If you’re doing giant robots, there’s an expectation that it either controls like a simulator (Mechwarrior, Steel Battalion) or an arcade/action game (Virtual On, Shogo) but you’re not easily going to marry a control scheme to the setting that appeals to both the action and simulation fan.

So if you have a type of gameplay in mind, weigh the setting carefully. Fit the setting to the gameplay so that it enhances and nurtures it. If setting is to gameplay in a game to what setting is to plot in a movie, then an Old West setting could be anything from the Wild Bunch to Young Guns to the Apple Dumpling Gang – that is, it’s a broad idea with the potential to go any number of ways. If the setting (or the story) is the game idea or pitch, it’s probably not going to turn out well, in the same way that genre has nothing to do with the quality of the gameplay.

Disclaimer – Answering these questions is fun but a tad depressing – they’re good questions, but it’s a bit like philosophy in that they are ideals that exist in a vacuum. Like in philosophy, someone might argue that if your society produces widgets and all ten people each produce and share ten widgets, that everyone will have one widget, therefore ensuring equality or something, but in reality there’s going to be one person just can’t wrap their head around the widget machine and another who’s going to knock out one of the other guys, take his widget, and proclaim, “I’m the richest widget motherfucker in the world, bitches!” I guess I don’t see this caveat enough in papers on design – that is, it’s all bullshit until you can play it. If it helps, cool, but design is never a constant. – End Disclaimer

What are your preferences and thoughts in regard to storylines?

That they’re generally oversold, self-important, generally amateur and poorly executed, and mostly contribute very little to the success and enjoyment of a game. Like setting, story should take a backseat to good, solid design and fun gameplay. At best, a good story should make a good game better, like a fine glass of wine paired with an exquisite meal.

Linear or non-linear?

I think this depends on the game design. I think for heavily story-based games, linear is still the most efficient way to go - and really, almost all games have a degree of linear progression to them, even if it doesn’t seem that way on the surface. True non-linear games barely even need a story, especially if the gameplay lets the player write their own.  For a game like Call of Duty or Persona 4, I don’t really mind linear progression/stories, and for a non-linear game like Mount and Blade, I don’t feel the lack of story or direction hurts it at all.

Epic or low-key?

I’m not a fan of saving the world. To me, this is marketing-driven hero dick size. I imagine it goes something like this:

Developer #1 – “In our game, the hero saves the country.”
Developer #2 – “Yeah, well, in our game, the hero saves the entire world.”
Developer #1 – “Did I say country? I meant… the UNIVERSE!”
Developer #2 – “Uh, well, after you save the world in our game, you save every single world in every dimension and score with all the chicks!”
Developer #1 – “Okay, yeah, and- oh, in our game, if you beat it, and you save every dimension, and even the negative dimensions, and all the chicks, you can print out a coupon… and it gets you into Heaven.”
Developer #2 – “Shit… well, our collector’s edition comes with a bobble-head.”

Right, so, I’m not a big fan of saving the world because it’s usually used as a crutch to make the story and its characters weightier. A good story is a good story regardless of the scope of the protagonist’s deeds, but in games I think studios gravitate towards “save the world” because it makes the story sound so much more grandiose – it’s a press release/back of the box bullet point. I’d like to see more games feature well-developed characters and plots more than anything else, epic or not.

Formulaic or "chaotic"?

Either, depending on the needs of the design. I would like games to explore the nature of the medium more. Very few games right now tell a story that could only be done in games, so I guess that might fall under “chaotic” then. What I’d like to do is a story that forgoes a choose-your-own-adventure setup – the good/evil linear branching – and really does provide a looser narrative with some randomized NPC motivations/plots (a good analogy is the board game Clue) that comes together to provide a story that is unique to each player without boiling down to “I chose option A at the end.” It’s possible with current technology, but it’s just not big enough of a feature for the amount of risk it presents.

Taking control from the player for extra drama (i.e. you fell asleep, was captured, and thrown in jail. Surprise!) or leaving the player completely in charge?

I’m not a fan of forcing the player into situations like prison or a situation they know is tactically stupid. I especially don’t like being forced to take characters in my party that I know are evil and are going to betray me (<cough>…Kreia… <cough>) without being to murder them in their sleep or kick to them to the curb. Sometimes lack of choice is a necessary evil, sometimes it’s damn lazy.

Take a game like Dead Rising, for instance – one of the most surprisingly open-ended games I’ve played in awhile. You meet a survivor that seems like an ass – don’t help them. There are bosses, but you don’t have to bother with them. If you don’t want to follow the main plot – don’t. Sure, you won’t get the optimal ending, but if you don’t care about the story and just want to explore the mall slicing up zombies, you’re free to do so. 

What are your storytelling trademarks (or what storytelling aspects would you like to develop into your own trademarks)?

I like playing with clichés and then surprising the player when I don’t do what they’re expecting. I think it’s unrealistic to have characters that embody good and evil, and I prefer to write them in shades of gray and with logical motivations. When doing drama or horror, I think you have to add in light-hearted or comedic moments to break up tension or reinforce severity, and I freely admit to stealing these techniques from Hitchcock and Kurosawa. Most of all, I have a sense of humor, and I feel I’ve failed if I haven’t made someone laugh out loud at some point in the story.

Ok, so you have a setting and a story. All you have to do is populate it with characters. How does this step work?

First thing to figure out is just how many characters are necessary or expected by the game design AND very importantly, the technology. Nowadays, between modeling time, VO budget, cinematic animation, approval process, and scripting time, characters can be quite expensive to add. So you can say we’re going to have a whole city of characters, but the reality might be that your tech allows twenty. Total. In the entire game. So, that can kind of smart.

Assuming characters aren’t a problem, it’s a matter of figuring out how many the plot requires or can be done justice in the amount of time they appear. I prefer to work with a smaller amount of characters and show growth/change in relationships rather than doing hundreds of NPCs that all have variations on “greetings” and “retrieve my hat for a reward.” I think if you make every NPC you encounter a variation of “be nice to/be an ass” or “hug/kill”, it tends to lead to disposable stat counter dialogues with no long-term emotional growth or consequences besides an arrow on a meter that falls somewhere between murderous fuckwit and sycophantic eunuch.  If the player cares at all about the story, they’ll be paying attention enough to realize their relationship is changing in both subtle and profound ways – otherwise they’ll just skip the dialogue and get back to beating stuff to death.

In the case of linear/non-interactive games, writers have no excuse not to put in a few characters with a decent story arc, a couple of good lines of dialogue, and at least one memorable cutscene. It’s practically a movie at that point anyhow.

My rule for coming up with characters is directly related to the extremes of the protagonist. If the player is supposed to be a hero, than the majority of the NPCs should either be antagonists, rivals, or in need of a hero. Or they sell weapons, I guess. Divvy up the amount of characters by the amount of bosses/allies and then try to make them either not be walking stereotypes, two-dimensional quest kiosks, or clones of each other. If you’ve done well, players will all have different favorites. If you’ve done poorly, players won’t have any favorite characters, or like the protagonist, or like playing your game very much. It’s good to run them by other members of the team and see how excited they get about the concept or get their input – but always keep in mind that sometimes characters don’t click until someone plays through their arc to completion, and nuanced/complicated characters may wind up shallow and cookie cutter if altered to become immediately rewarding. Does that make sense? When all else fails, I guess you can just throw in a character that makes veiled sexual references – everyone likes dick jokes!

Do you have a dedicated "setting support" group of characters who flesh out and explain the setting?

Avatar, Lord British has summoned you once again to Britannia. Realistically all your characters should somewhat tie into and reflect the setting. I suppose if you’re going for an abstract setting, then absolutely your characters should flesh out what the laws and properties of the world are. Although if everything can be explained by wizards or deus ex machina, the less you to try to explain the better.

Also, how do you turn a cardboard cut-out or a vague concept (we could really use a ninja-pirate here!) into a memorable and "real" character who has a potential to launch his own merchandise line?

Tits? How many of those Morrigan and Cammy statues has Capcom sold? Hm, you know if it’s a cardboard cutout character that you’re trying to merchandise, than you probably want it to appeal to the lowest common denominator ™. You want it to be the pirate ninja girl with a rack so big that they have to employ rows of pumped midgets to prop them up. Or massive, armored heroes with more muscles than a Rob Liefeld wet dream carrying weapons that double as guns and rototillers. And maybe something a cross between Jesus and Snarf for the kids… yeah, that’s tight, a real stocking stuffer.

If you want to make it count and stand the test of time – all you need to do is play against the character type a wee bit and people will think it’s brilliant. Or they won’t. A good rule of thumb – don’t try to manufacture any of the characters. Just go with what works for your story. The clearance aisles are filled with characters that focus tested through the roof.

* * *

[Starwars]

I’m not a fan of saving the world. To me, this is marketing-driven hero dick size. I imagine it goes something like this:

Developer #1 – “In our game, the hero saves the country.”
Developer #2 – “Yeah, well, in our game, the hero saves the entire world.”
Developer #1 – “Did I say country? I meant… the UNIVERSE!”
Developer #2 – “Uh, well, after you save the world in our game, you save every single world in every dimension and score with all the chicks!”
Developer #1 – “Okay, yeah, and- oh, in our game, if you beat it, and you save every dimension, and even the negative dimensions, and all the chicks, you can print out a coupon… and it gets you into Heaven.”
Developer #2 – “Shit… well, our collector’s edition comes with a bobble-head.”

Tits? How many of those Morrigan and Cammy statues has Capcom sold? Hm, you know if it’s a cardboard cutout character that you’re trying to merchandise, than you probably want it to appeal to the lowest common denominator ™. You want it to be the pirate ninja girl with a rack so big that they have to employ rows of pumped midgets to prop them up. Or massive, armored heroes with more muscles than a Rob Liefeld wet dream carrying weapons that double as guns and rototillers. And maybe something a cross between Jesus and Snarf for the kids… yeah, that’s tight, a real stocking stuffer.

Fucking lol.

Great interview. After Bloodlines, I'm very interested to see what characters that he came up with in Alpha Protocol.

[Ellorien]

What are your preferences and thoughts in regard to storylines?

That they’re generally oversold, self-important, generally amateur and poorly executed, and mostly contribute very little to the success and enjoyment of a game. Like setting, story should take a backseat to good, solid design and fun gameplay. At best, a good story should make a good game better, like a fine glass of wine paired with an exquisite meal.

I agree with the first part of his statement and disagree with the second. Only someone working on Alpha Protocol would say that the story should [always?] take a backseat.

I like playing with clichés and then surprising the player when I don’t do what they’re expecting.

A few examples would be helpful.

[Annie]

Only someone working on Alpha Protocol would say that the story should [always?] take a backseat.

Rather unfair.  He's not working on it and hasn't been for quite some time, same as me: he created all the characters and the original concept, but since the revamp, none of his work (or mine) remains.

I've seen plenty of games that adhere so strongly to the story, you feel sort of helpless - I've played many (video games as well as pen-and-paper RPGs!) where I've felt dragged along through things unnecessarily complex, with a distant hope of things making sense in the end.  And the fact is that a "deep story" will NEVER sell a modern publisher on a title - it's important, but it shouldn't fight with the gameplay.  If you have a game that's frustrating and repetitive, do you really want to keep playing it in the hope that the story will "save" things, or would you rather have an engaging, entertaining game where the story might not be as in-depth but you really do feel that you're involved with it?

I love writing.  I love games.  And I'd be the first to admit that, as Frank Miller* once said, "Story is a fire hydrant, and there's a line of dogs around the block."  Everyone believes they can write, and will be the first to boo-hiss what you've got planned.  And if it doesn't feel like it supports the key elements of the game, if it doesn't feel like it FITS, they have a point.

* He's crazy now, yes, but that remains a good quote.

[Vince]

Only someone working on Alpha Protocol would say that the story should [always?] take a backseat.

Rather unfair.  He's not working on it and hasn't been for quite some time, same as me: he created all the characters and the original concept, but since the revamp, none of his work (or mine) remains.

I understand that you can only say so much, but can you explain that revamping business a bit? Sounds like a radical change of direction. Why?

[Ellorien]

[I've seen plenty of games that adhere so strongly to the story, you feel sort of helpless - I've played many (video games as well as pen-and-paper RPGs!) where I've felt dragged along through things unnecessarily complex, with a distant hope of things making sense in the end.  And the fact is that a "deep story" will NEVER sell a modern publisher on a title - it's important, but it shouldn't fight with the gameplay.  If you have a game that's frustrating and repetitive, do you really want to keep playing it in the hope that the story will "save" things, or would you rather have an engaging, entertaining game where the story might not be as in-depth but you really do feel that you're involved with it?

You forget that I agreed with the first part - that the stories are "generally oversold, self-important, generally amateur and poorly executed, and mostly contribute very little to the success and enjoyment of a game", in other words, are poorly written and badly executed.

To choose between "story" and "gameplay" is false dichotomy. Wny not have them both? And yes, I would rather play PS:T than any game with "engaging" gameplay. Just a personal preference, perhaps.
And no, if the story is meh I don't feel involved. Don't get me wrong: I can still enjoy mindless fun but I recognize it as such.

[Annie]

RE: redirection of game - I can't go into precisely why, mostly because it was a choice made after I'd been moved onto Storm of Zehir.  I think the studio just decided to go in a new direction. 

And I definitely agree about the "why not BOTH?" point.  Story and gameplay aren't part of a dichotomy - it's that too often they're approached that way, and there's a misunderstanding, I think, among many devs, that either the story runs the show or PFFFF WHATEVS.  I think it's seen by too many level designers as something that restrains fun instead of helps to shape and clarify it, which we know it ISN'T, but yeah.  Complicated.  And again - I don't think you can ever sell a game purely on its story... not right out the gate, at least.  A really good story makes a game last (provided the gameplay isn't crap!), but you're never going to get a publisher excited by going "This story will REALLY move units in two or three years!"  They'll pull a lever and you will drop into their handy in-office bear pit.

...okay, not a bear pit, but you get the idea

[Edward_R_Murrow]

To choose between "story" and "gameplay" is false dichotomy. Why not have them both?

I wish I could agree, but the game industry seems to prove me wrong.  In a perfect gaming world, the two wouldn't have any adverse effects on one another, but  I've found "story" can often strangle gameplay.

Take for instance dungeon design.  Back "in the day", there wasn't any expectation of coherence in a dungeon.  If you walked into one room and fought samurai clowns, then a pizza delivery illithid in the next, followed by an orc riding a war unicorn nobody really cared.  It wasn't necesarily a good thing, but it did allow developers an easy way to vary encounters.  Now that people expect each dungeon to "tell a story", the variations in combat encounters has gone down because developers either adhere too strictly to trying to make a "coherent dungeon experience" or hide behind the story as a way of justifying their terrible encounter design. 

For example, compare Watcher's Keep or Durlag's Tower to later Bioware "dungeons" like KOTOR's Sith strongholds, or Mass Effect's Cerberus base missions.  The former two make almost no sense and are very loosely held together in terms of thematics.  Going from a temple, to a floor where four elemental mages were feuding, to a demonic maze managed to make just as little sense as the "chess match" in Durlag's Tower.  While they made little sense, the variation in encounters made for fun gameplay.  Compare to the latter of the two aforementioned dungeon pairs.  They are much more grounded in the reality of the setting, are a lot more believable, as they are focused on telling a story, so to say.  The problem is, the majority of the gameplay within both of them is combat, and it is mostly against the same enemies ad nauseum.

Obviously, the "perfect" dev team would be able to have both a coherent atmosphere and be able to make varied encounters, but it seems like modern gameplay developers just flop when it comes to this because the "story" aspect is overemphasized.

It seems like "story" has become grandfathered in by the mainstream game industry to stand as a crutch or a catch-all for any flaws in the game as a whole, regardless of the quality of said story.  Examples include just about every jRPG ever made, Metal Gear Stupid, God of War, and such.

I'm totally with you in that having our cake and eating it too is the best outcome, but I don't feel like it is very feasible in today's mainstream gaming world, where most companies are lucky to be able to be remotely skilled at delivering one part.

And yes, I would rather play PS:T than any game with "engaging" gameplay. Just a personal preference, perhaps.

Torment seems like a "bad" example for this, because Torment is one of the few story-driven games to "get it".  The developers realized the dialogues and exploring Sigil were what the game did best, so they decided to make it 90% of the game.  So the majority of the player's time is spent interacting with the story through dialogue and exploration.  I think a more fitting example of the "choice" we as gamers have on the "story" side would be KOTOR2; a game with superb writing, a wonderful plot, but some of the most awful crap masquerading as gameplay I've seen and the developers had the bright idea to make somewhere around 60% of play time trash combat.  Kinda counter-intuitive. 

I feel like that's more representative of the "real" choice gamers have when it comes to story versus gameplay.  Stuff like Torment, Legacy of Kain, or Grim Fandango is in the minority.

And no, if the story is meh I don't feel involved. Don't get me wrong: I can still enjoy mindless fun but I recognize it as such.

Are you saying a story-based gameplay isn't mindless but others are?  I mean, I'd say KOTOR2, while having a brilliant story was a lot more mindless than either X-Com or Jagged Alliance 2, both of which have almost zero story.  I'd even go so far as to say KOTOR 2 was more mindless than games like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, and God Hand because in KOTOR2 all I had to do was sit down and "watch" with very little active brain usage other than "chomp chomp yum yum good story Kriea awesome" (which is to say that really the only mental task of any note was absorbing the story), whereas in the previously mentioned trio, I had to learn the mechanics (which are pretty in-depth), learn the enemies, and learn how and where to apply both sets of knowledge.

Also feel free to ignore me, because it's likely this post is a bunch of incomprehensible, pseudo-intellectual, retarded nonsense.

For example, if you’re emphasizing a serious real world setting and your human character jump kicks a tank to pieces or does battle with a telepath who can only be beaten by plugging your controller into the second slot, your “serious real world” game setting starts to become more unbelievable, and even if the mechanics are fun, you’ve undermined any authenticity you were going for.

Nice.

Developer #2 – “Shit… well, our collector’s edition comes with a bobble-head.”

As the rabid Fallout fan I am, I'm totally reading that in a likely different way than he intended.  But perhaps "bobblehead" was chosen for a reason?

Nice job getting this interview, Vince.  Unfortunately, I posted it about 20 seconds too late.....

[Ellorien]

And I definitely agree about the "why not BOTH?" point.  Story and gameplay aren't part of a dichotomy - it's that too often they're approached that way, and there's a misunderstanding, I think, among many devs, that either the story runs the show or PFFFF WHATEVS.  I think it's seen by too many level designers as something that restrains fun instead of helps to shape and clarify it, which we know it ISN'T, but yeah.  Complicated.  And again - I don't think you can ever sell a game purely on its story... not right out the gate, at least.  A really good story makes a game last (provided the gameplay isn't crap!), but you're never going to get a publisher excited by going "This story will REALLY move units in two or three years!"  They'll pull a lever and you will drop into their handy in-office bear pit.

...okay, not a bear pit, but you get the idea

yes I do. 

Take for instance dungeon design.  Back "in the day", there wasn't any expectation of coherence in a dungeon. 

Back "in the day" (I mean 15-20 years ago) there was no "industry", only talented enthusiasts making games I wanted to replay. Today I cannot force myself even to finish the game once. The sprawling dungeons are gone, along with the intricate character creation systems. What left is warehouses (ME) and pitiful 2x2 caves (SoZ).

Now that people expect each dungeon to "tell a story", the variations in combat encounters has gone down because developers either adhere too strictly to trying to make a "coherent dungeon experience" or hide behind the story as a way of justifying their terrible encounter design. 

I don't understand why a "coherent dungeon experience" should necessarily make the encounter design terrible. I think the widespread developers' incompetence is to blame for such outcomes, not the supposedly inherent design limitations.

I think a more fitting example of the "choice" we as gamers have on the "story" side would be KOTOR2; a game with superb writing, a wonderful plot, but some of the most awful crap masquerading as gameplay I've seen and the developers had the bright idea to make somewhere around 60% of play time trash combat.  Kinda counter-intuitive. 

No, I would not call KOTOR2 a game with superb writing. A wonderful plot? You gotta be kidding. Semi-decent at best. The only good game Obsidian managed to make was MotB (minus spirit-meter) and it was just an expansion.

Are you saying a story-based gameplay isn't mindless but others are?

 
As opposed to a mindless clickfest? Yes. But such games are few.

Also feel free to ignore me, because it's likely this post is a bunch of incomprehensible, pseudo-intellectual, retarded nonsense.

That's what I usually post here so we are cool.

[cb.spike]

Sometimes they think a setting is “cool” and then spend three or more years of their lives trying to shoehorn a design into it.

Aliens RPG?

[34s Cell]

The individual elements of the game don't matter, so long as it's good in its whole.

[Vince]

RE: redirection of game - I can't go into precisely why, mostly because it was a choice made after I'd been moved onto Storm of Zehir.  I think the studio just decided to go in a new direction. 

How does something like this happen? I'm interested in the general process, not in AP details.

Let's say we have a mainstream studio and a game in development. A skilled writer/designer comes up with the story and characters. I assume the story is checked and approved at various stages. Then the studio decides to throw everything out and start from scratch. What are the reasons? If you had to guess.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Good question Vince.

"space marines in high-def warehouses" lolz

In games, story should be integrated into gameplay, a story told through cut scenes is worthless and boring. See Call of Cthulhu, DCotE for example of a game story done right.

[Slaughter]

In games, story should be integrated into gameplay, a story told through cut scenes is worthless and boring. See Call of Cthulhu, DCotE for example of a game story done right.

Agreed. The Fall - Last Days of Gaia would've been better if the story was less linear and there was annoying moments where my character entered into a cutscene and began to speak instead of me. WTF dude, I'm the man here! If there's something I don't like in a game, is when the story wrestles control from me.

Another example is the typical jRPG arrest. Your character, Fighter McBadass, just took out a small army by himself with a mace. He walks a bit and find two guards, who arrest him. Even though Fighter McBadass is unhurt, untired and very strong. And the guards are just normal guards. And you HAVE to go along with it. That's the story wrestling control over gameplay, and that's boring.

Compare to Jagged Alliance 2. So, in a fit of insanity (or bravery) you decided assaulting a SAM site with a bunch of dudes with handguns is a brillant idea. Uh-oh, and then you found out, too late, there's a small army of dudes with assault rifles and gas grenades inside. So they take out your team. Everyone is either dead or unconscious. They thrown the unconcious people in jail. Sometimes, if your team is too weak or overpowered by superior numbers, the enemy says something like "Surrender or die." And yes, you CAN go along, surrender and your squad members that are alive go to prison, and the game rages on. But if your team kills the small army of dudes with assault rifles and gas grenades, the game rages on and your troops are still free from jail. This is the story going along with gameplay. This is how a good game does it.

Another bad example is the ending of Fallout 3, obviously in spoilers:

(click to show/hide)

Yes, you can help Eden to purge the Washington Wasteland of non-pure human life. Yes, you can simply purify the water and save everyone. No, you can't side with Colonel Autumn, the only man in the Enclave who has a reasonable idea. No, you ALWAYS have to go with the Lyons' Pride to assault the Enclave. No, you can't sneak into the memorial using the taft tunnels. No, Fawkes can't go, even though he's a hulking radiation-immune super mutie. Someone has to die, THE PURIFIER DEMANDS A BLOOD SACRIFICE!!!

[Scott]

So much good stuff here already, I just have to say I fall on the good-story/good-gameplay side of the fence.  I think some confusion could arise from "story" always being presumed to refer to a game-length plot arc, where you proceed chapter by chapter with frequent cut scenes packed with exposition which no one could be bothered to integrate into the actual game.  What about a game which tells multiple, not-so-involved stories?

I also second Ellorien that enslaving your dungeons (or "wilderness" corridors, a la NWN2) to the story results in sterile, unexciting gameplay.