Merge narrative and mechanics
This isn't something new. The debate between ludology and narratology is long and infinite. How to correctly merge these two aspects of our game? Story and gameplay.
This question is tricky because of two main problems:
a) Games can be very different and diverse. Games can be conceived as a mere entreteinment, just as a simple arcade game, or otherwise as a story, as a novel. Maybe both. So most of times it's hard to stablish the line between story and mechanics.
Furthermore, narrative isn't only the plot. We need to differentiate between the plot and the message.
So, like in the picture, I like to distinguish between three components of a game and merging them well: game, plot and message. And beware, don't confuse these with the parts of a game, such as mechanics, art or argument. Precisely because the previous components can be formed by these.
Let me explain. The "game" refers to the playable part, but it's not only defined by the mechanics, but also by the art. For example, if two games are played exactly the same but we change the style, is it the same game? Mmm... it has the same mechanics, right, but I wouldn't say it's the same game.
The "message" is samely composed not only by the argument. Mechanics can also transmit and make players feel and understand. The plot isn't only transmitted by dialogs or cinematics, also the art plays an important role.
Okay, but now the problem I was commenting when I started this section is: how much of each component has our game? If we're making an arcade game, the plot will be poor or innexistant. Nonetheless we can still have a message, of course. But the strong point will be the mechanics. That's innevitable.
However if we make a visual novel, a classic point-and-click, the plot will be the main aspect and mechanics could be quite poor. Some visual novels, like "Profesor Layton" solve that with puzzles, riddles or anything similar.
And then the actions we need to take depending on the combination of components are very different. I mean, if we have much of something and few of something else (for example, strong mechanics and weak plot) then we can make the division of mechancis and dialogs harder. While if plot and mechanics are equally strong, we need to merge them.
A common error in games (mostly indie games due to a lack of experience by developers, but in all kind of games) is the division of narrative and mechanics. And beware, I don't mean their contradiction, but their division. Haven't you ever seen a game where you need to play (just play, hit buttons) for... I don't know, 20 minuts maybe, then you get a cinematic or a dialogue, and then you go back to hitting buttons? Games shouldn't be that. Being told a story and play a story shouldn't be something separated, at least in videogames.
Nevertheless, in a game as I was describing before, with a lot of mechanics and few plot (for example) you can divide mechanics and story strongly, and it's not vexing. And viceversa.
So, how much time, resources and design you need to invest in merging depends on how equal are the components. That's the conclusion, if you hadn't got it.
If you develop a game and these three components (game, plot and message) are samely important in you project, please, take time to merge them correctly.
Maybe soon I'll write another post talking about merging tecniques and strategies, but now I don't want to enlarge this post too much.
b) (Just if you didn't remember that we still had to see point B): Tastes.
And that's a problem, because okay, we've seen that we need to learn how to merge and equalize the different components of our game. But, can you assert that by doing it your game will be a success? No, of course.
For example, I hate Dungeons games. You know, there are a lot of RPG like that. Those games in which you have a closed circuit perfectly prepared for you (the player) and enemies continuously show up to attack you.
Why don't I like them? Because all you do is hit and move, hit and move, hit and move, for ever. I don't really care if they are an arcade game, like the classic beat'em ups. In that case, hitting and moving is it all. However, there are other games that pretend having a story, having a plot. And the only role of the player in all of that is: hit and move, hit and move, hit and move. You can do that for thirty minutes just to see a small video and start it all over again.
Nonetheless, this is a matter of tastes. Those kind of games have a lot of fans and players. Many people like the games I don't, of course.
The point of this is that, there are always players for any kind of game. Even when we do things we can consider incorrect, primitive or poor, there are players for it.
This makes it very hard for us developers ti have an idea of what a good game is. It's hard to stablish rules about what is a good and a bad game, if there's always people playing it and paying for it.
This depends, I guess, on your target. But obviously I don't write a blog to suggest making stupid simple games, even if they success, and I'll always deffend a further work, idealism and concept behind our masterpieces. So, keep creating, because without imagination the world's over.