I’ve talked before about how games can offer a unique opportunity to tell stories, and how it has an incredible potential to be a powerful story telling medium. In this article I’m going to go over some games that I think could have benefited from not being in a video game format. If you are making a story, and it’s still in the same format as other mediums such as literature, movies, or even music, then the fact that the story is told through a video game becomes cumbersome and obnoxious. What I have observed happening, from my experience, is that if a story is best suited for something other than a video game, you find yourself having to force your way through a game with bland game play mechanics that are not fun to unlock more of a story that you are rapidly loosing interest in.
Bioshock
Bioshock is a series often heralded as being among the best stories in video games, and while I’m sure that the claim is not without merit, I still can’t force myself through the game. The setting, the environment, the story, everything about this game makes me want to play it, but I can’t stand the game play mechanics of Bioshock. Every second of the game is like grating my forehead against a brick wall, and as much as I want to finish the game so that I can find out what happens (even though I already know) and how it all plays together, I just can’t make myself. I realize that my problem is that I just don’t really enjoy First Person Shooter games anymore, but I would really have preferred the Bioshock universe be set in a literary format so that I could get inside the heads of the different characters, which would go along with the philosophical atmosphere of the game.
Assassin’s Creed
Assassin’s Creed could have been an excellent, well, anything else really, book (which it is), movie, comic book, any thing that wouldn’t force me to do fetch quests to unlock another tid bit of story. What really irked me about these games was that it could have been fun if it was more of a Hitman style game, but set in the olden times. Instead Ubisoft decided to be lazy and make the game a beat ‘em up with some poorly done “stealth” mechanics shoe horned in. What started off as a strong, though clearly flawed, game turned into a series of horrible, stagnant fetch quests who’s story was becoming increasingly convoluted, insane, and still some how cliche.
I remember first playing Assassin’s Creed and thinking how much fun it was to jump from roof top to roof top, killing whom ever I wished, and looking forward to carefully planning and executing my assassinations. Unfortunately, the game holds your hand completely through out the entire game, giving you fetch quests that take the place of true problem solving skills, and forcing you to go exactly where it wants you. Really the only entertaining part of the game ended up being the search for the flags of the various clans to be collected, and to dive off of all the Eagle Points in the game.
Really, Assassin’s Creed just smacks more of being a poorly executed idea on Ubisoft’s part. A Hitman style game set during the Crusades, a Mirror’s Edge style parkour game, an intense action thriller, or a deep Science Fiction novel; any of these things could have replaced what Assassin’s Creed actually is.
Arkham Asylum/Arkham City
First off, I’m not talking down on this game, I have enjoyed this series quite a bit so far. I have 15 hours in Arkham Asylum and 20 in Arkham City, and I’m not any where near finished playing them. I really think these games were great, and I know that there is a comic series that exists for the story arch, but I really wish that all the effort put into the games could have been put into an expansive comic book series instead of two games and a limited issue comic series.
I love the Batman universe, and it’s not because of Batman. Actually, I hate Batman, I can’t stand listening to him whine about his dead parents all the time. I love the Batman universe because of the criminals. Each one has an interesting psychological profile, and back story, and I really love the literary inspiration of a lot of the villains. What I don’t like is having to wade my way through a game with mediocre game mechanics just to squeeze out some story. Don’t get me wrong, AA and AC were bother excellent games that really stood out as the two of the leading AAA titles of the past decade, but I would have much preferred that the Dark Knight remained in the pages of a comic book. A literary format would have worked so much better for the stories these games were trying to tell.
Assassin’s Creed and the Arkham games share a lot in common. Both make use of a parkour/”free running” element to allow exploration of the areas you find yourself in, and both use gadgets that become plot devices to drive the story forward in a very boring way. In an over-the-top, zany world such as Arkham Asylum or Arkham City, I really don’t need the realism of having to track down Mr. Freeze to steal his weapons, or the immersion breaking “hey Alfread, how about you send in that thing I’ve had at the bat cave, and had room for on my belt, but decided not to bring just because” scenes. If you are going for the cartoon-ish world of a comic book, don’t ruin it with a bunch of “details” that are meant to extend the length of a game that needs no extension. With the hundreds of Riddler trophies and puzzles to solve, what more do you really need.
Really when it comes down to it, I didn’t enjoy Arkham City so much as I enjoyed solving all the Riddler’s Riddles (which I’m still working on completing 20 hours in), which is another similarity that the two Arkham Games shared with Assassin’s Creed. There’s tons of content, and I do enjoy the story, but I think this series could have benefited from some ink and paper.
While there are certainly other games that could have been made much better in other media forms, there are also plenty of games that I felt utilized the unique opportunities that gaming offers. Note that these games are ones that I feel relate a story properly through video games, not necessarily game play mechanics, which is another topic entirely.
Bioshock was littered with references to Ayn Rand.
I hate Ayn Rand.
That’s funny because Bioshock’s story is more about how Ayn Rand’s view of a utopia is flawed and how it fucked up because of the objectivist mindset.
Will, he was just saying that to look smart. I know Rory, that pseudo-intellectual, lecture-regurgitating plebeian doesn’t even read high literature.
Obviously, but anything to do with Ayn Rand leaves me seething in anger. By the way Aaron only plays bot matches in Dota 2 because the game is too hard for him.
Spirits alive. You must have me confused with Tristan. Would you like to give Magicka another go, Rory?
When did you become a Nazi communist? And is it difficult subsisting on a diet of dick cheese and toilet water?
One of the main facets of Bioshocks fame is how it plays with user interaction and player responses. It would not have worked outside of being a video game.
This. A significant part of the stories impact comes from the feeling of your having been the protagonist (faceless, and largely voiceless). The atmosphere and general tenseness add so much and couldn’t be replicated outside of video games. As for the game not being fun, I’m actually replaying it right now and having a great time. This is coming from someone who plays very few shooters.
As for Assassin’s Creed and Batman, those are some great opinions you’ve got there but they have little merit as critiques. I don’t enjoy the Assassin’s Creed games much, but from what I’ve experienced, I fail to see how the story is better served by being a movie or book or comic. The heart of your problem with the series seems to be just a dislike of gameplay quirks which is totally fine, and I happen to agree, but doesn’t speak to it being ill-suited for the medium whatsoever. As for Batman I don’t even
what
Apologies for typos and general lack of clarity, also for my agreement with one comment running on into my own full remarks. What I meant about Assassin’s Creed was, I agree with the part about it’s gameplay flaws, but they are just that, flaws in the gameplay. They could have been changed and the game would have been better for it. They are not in any way inherent to or necessary for the story, so I don’t see how this supports your title’s claim.
I disagree about all three of your choices here.
There are lots of games that would have been better served as some other sort of entertainment medium, but BioShock, Assassin’s Creed and The Arkham games do not fall into this category.
BioShock (already mentioned in the above posts) serves well as a video game because you play through it as a faceless protagonist. Yes, the story was very interesting, and the shooting mechanics were rather bland, but the way things interact in the game (Big Daddies and hacked turrets, plasmids and the environment) don’t translate as well to other forms of entertainment.
Assassin’s Creed is one I don’t really understand. The story is hardly interesting (Does anybody really care about Desmond?) and while it is now horribly out played, when Assassin’s Creed 2 came out, it was rather unique, and improved everything that was wrong with it’s previous entry. I honestly could not really care about the story here, so anything other than a video game would not really help it’s cause.
As for the Arkham games, the story is certainly a major factor through the game. However, the entire point of that game was to feel like Batman, and it certainly achieved this. The beat-em-up mechanics may not have been the best but playing through both those games, I most certainly felt in control at all times. Turning these games into a comic book would have been okay, but in my opinion they certainly work better as video games.
I think the main concern you’re addressing is with somewhat boring game mechanics that should’ve received more attention. All of the above games do however benefit from being a video game. (SPOILER: At the end of AC:B, when you must press buttons to kill Lucy was surprisingly emotional, which can’t be translated to other mediums with the same effect)
Asura’s Wrath however is a game that comes to mind that should not have been a video game.
Dinner Date
Talk down batman. Those games were horrible. Press punch in time (or not, your choice) then counter when the symbol flashes. Like some 2 button DDR. Oh, and don’t forget the special enemies where you had to press a third button first so you could start punching them in the usual 2 button DDR scheme.
It’s the worst combat system ever. The entire rest of the game is lock/key bullshit worse than modern Zelda.
No Heavy Rain? That was an obvious choice for me.
I love all three of the games, and I have to disagree with your assessment. The problem is that everyone already said what was important, so I guess this comment is just to let you know I disagree with you.
…
I’m gonna go shake my fist angrily at my cat now.
Everyone else has already said what needs to be said, but I’ll add that I don’t think that, in Bioshock, the main idea that you are not as in control of your actions as you think you are fits perfectly within a video game and probably cannot be replicated easily in other media.
The bigger problem(for me) with Bioshock’s inclusion, besides all that has been said already, is that the game deflects so much of itself from the main character that it constantly keeps you on your toes, forcing you to rush, react, and implicitly go along with the world it is creating (which then makes some of the twists even more damning). The “blank slate” protagonist mentioned earlier allows you to substitute yourself into the role in a way that couldn’t happen in a movie or book. As for the mechanics, the pervasive atmosphere and sense of tension created by the world (and your ambiguous role in it) de-emphasizes the controls and gameplay mechanics, which in my view distances it from other games. Sure, you have a lot of plasmids, and different tonics, but the gameplay makes switching between these a frantic struggle where, more often than not, you’ll only use 1-2 guns and 1-2 plasmids during each encounter. At least I did. Because, despite my ideas of coming up with effective gameplay strategies, the beauty and eerie familiarity of the world is at odds with the brutal and lightning-quick action. In short, your sense of control, and how the story line plays with the notion of control, is why it needs to be a game.
As for Assassin’s Creed, I kind of agree with you, though there are times where I think it would work better as JUST a game, without the story that I increasingly felt was rote and tedious.
Didn’t /v/ burn Hepler at the stake for saying something similar to this?
There’s a difference between me saying I don’t like a few games for some specific reasons that are then listed, and saying that I wish I could just skip gameplay all together and just have the story. Please don’t compare me to her. I like video games, these are just three different series I happened to dislike.
Coincidentally, I will be doing an article for games that I don’t think could have been done in any other medium as effectively, I just need to finish all of them, well, just the last one, really.
Well, I only partially agree on the AC part.
While the series, beginning from the second game, surely would have worked a lot better as a movie (and without the present-day aspect), which is pretty obvious when you look at how easy the combat system is and how awesome the animations are, I’d say that the first game was almost a masterpiece.
Now, the first game had quite a few issues – The controls were bugged, especially when climbing (Sometimes Altair would just stop moving), the combat system wasn’t all that good, etc. The biggest problem with it, though, was the fact that the minimap was activated by default.
Seriously, try playing it without a minimap. Suddenly it is MUCH more enjoyable, with less of an OCD streak. It’s still not perfect, but you gain a new appreciation for your environments and actually feel like you could plan out an assassination.
Unfortunately, the game is still too easy and the movement system problematic (I planned my escape route for assassinating that one guy who broke someone’s leg in a cutscene. I ended up running up a wall by accident, completely throwing off my plans). Not to mention that it doesn’t explain any of your upgrades (did you know one of these allowed you to catch ledges mid-fall?) and that the combat and stealth mechanics should be changed.
I just wish Ubisoft would’ve taken AC1′s idea and made it better with the second game, instead of turning it into some weird GTA with assassins and Sim City mashup full of broken balance and horrible game mechanics.
Anyway, tl;dr: AC2 and anything afterwards has no merit as a game, mostly due to bloat. AC1 does, but still suffers from flaws.
I totally see your point in BIoshock. I coudn’t get through the game either. I can’t point the reason, but somehow the game seems tedious as hell to me. AA and AC on the other hand have been a great experience to me (except for both their final bosses). This saga, unlike the Nolan films or the works of Frank Miller or Alan Moore for example, doesn’t take itself too seriously. If you’re a die hard fan of Batman, then you probably know all the villains in this games, and surely you predict the way they’re going to act given the tone of the games, so the story, in that case, wasn’t something worth of my care.