Game Devs, Let's Players, and the Future of Gaming

I have a theory: big game companies are a little scared to experiment with new ideas because they don’t know if they are guaranteed to work. It’s becoming more and more expensive to make games every day, so understandably, taking a gamble on an idea that sounds good and might work is frightening. What if the idea fails? Then the game won’t make any money and the company might just go bankrupt. This mostly applies to mainstream titles, but can apply to indie games as well.

However, I have noticed something. These unusual games that I have never heard of that are experimental, very short, and free to play. Most of these games come from GameJolt and I see several lets players such as Markiplier play them. They either enjoy the game or they hate it. But they all have one thing in common: they have one main mechanic and they focus the game all around that. These games can be seen as little experiments and tests being freely given by game developers who may or may not be affiliated with a studio or company. The great thing about these kinds of games is that they are not too difficult to make provided one has basic knowledge of utilizing an engine, coding, planning out an idea, and creating simple art assets.

Now picture this: a lead game designer working for a company that is struggling with ideas and they see one of these games being played by a lets player. The game displays a strange and new mechanic they have never seen before. Now they get the idea in their head to pitch this to their company, but to make it bigger and more fleshed out. They also come into contact with the creators of the game and ask for their assistance. Next thing you know the creators have a contract with the company, the lead designer has an idea that they have seen work, the company works hard to make it bigger and better, and the game is released to the public. The gaming community reacts positively to the game and it becomes critically acclaimed as one of the most entertaining games of recent years.

This is not a guaranteed scenario, but it is ideal. You have this idea you want to try, but you don’t have the skill level or co-workers or even time to make it the perfect game you want. All you have is enough to make one level that displays one mechanic and the players absolutely love it. Then a lets player picks it up and gives their feedback which gives it free publicity and gets even more players interested. That then draws the attention of someone with the power and resources to make that original idea a reality.

What I’m saying is if you have an idea you want to try, don’t fret if you can’t make it the great masterpiece you want it to be. Just make it big enough to draw attention. As for the developers of larger companies, look at these games and what they do. They might just give you an excellent idea that is practically guaranteed to work.

Sequels v. Prequels

            First off, why do we even have sequels? The first game was fun enough, right? We have additional entries into these games (or movies and books) because the gameplay could be expanded upon. Most sequels in video games improve upon the mechanics of the predecessor. Maybe they introduce a new ability, more characters with their own playstyles, or possibly new stages that play out unlike anything seen in the last title. This is why it’s a good idea that when you make a game, put in just enough features for the player to handle and if any other ideas show up, maybe save them for a future installment.

            Sequels can also be seen as a second chance to right the mistakes made in the original. Perhaps the story had weak structure, maybe platforming was a bad idea, or quite possibly having one hit deaths made things way too difficult. In addition to improving mechanics, sequels can fill in those pesky plot holes that showed up in the last game. Your hero broke through the walls of the fortress and shut down the power, but in the end credits it looks operational. What gives? You can make up an excuse like “They had an emergency backup switch.” This may not always work, but you can always plan out a story that intentionally leaves a few plot points out so that the story can continue.

            Prequels are virtually the same thing, but the story takes place before the original. This is only necessary if a character is in need of an origin story that is possibly too big to fit in one game. However, this doesn’t mean that the game can be a little worse than the original. It still needs to improve on things that went wrong. In the case of a prequel, you can try experimenting with new and unusual mechanics to see how they work. Players may or may not enjoy them, but it’s a good way to test something out to see if it works in a future installment. And if it doesn’t work out, now the players have a reason why this mechanic wasn’t in the original or the sequel.

            There are a few wrong ways about making additional games in the same franchise, though. The biggest mistake is padding content. A sequel or prequel should not be a carbon copy of the original with additional levels. It shouldn’t be gimmicky, either. Coloring your guns doesn’t amount to much. Making a sequel and focusing on just the story can be just as bad. “Oh, we’re just continuing where we left off.” Fine, you can do that, but at least throw some new stuff in there. Otherwise, it’s just an expansion pack that features more content and no new features.

            But when do you need to make a sequel? When do you need to stop expanding on the original game idea? I honestly couldn’t tell you. If your first game works fine, but has some flaws, a sequel can make it stronger. If the sequel is perfect, but fans love the IP, consider a prequel or another game genre that takes place in the same universe. Several developers have made tons of games on just one IP (Mario comes to mind) and they stick to the same basic mechanic that made the game work. They just add so much more with each title to keep it interesting and relevant. The only thing that suffers is the story. It becomes much harder to keep track of and players have to look at wikis to research all the lore or else play each of the ninety-nine titles in the franchise.

I feel like games are under more pressure than movies and books combined because the people want the experience of playing more than watching or reading. With movies, a set story plays out and it starts and ends when it wants to. The same goes with books. There is a start and an end to the series and hardly ever goes beyond five books. With games, we will constantly ask the developers when the next Half-Life game is releasing or if an older game like Legend of Dragoon will ever get an additional title to explain the unexplained. For the developers, just consider all ideas for a particular game and if it gets too big, cut it down to something more manageable and include the extra, still usable stuff in another installment. For players, the motto is simply “It’s done when it’s done.” But really, Legend of Dragoon could use a prequel. I would like to know what the Dragon Campaign was really all about.

Storytelling in Games

          One of the main reasons I got into gaming in general is because of the story of Final Fantasy IX. It was the first RPG I ever played and it had something I had never seen in other games: a plot. Granted, it was a complicated plot that rivals that of Final Fantasy VII in terms of “what is going on here,” but a plot nonetheless. I would say nostalgia makes me think fondly of that game’s story. However, upon looking at the plot summary, I realized I didn’t truly understand Final Fantasy IX at all! I can recall the events of Disc 1 and 2, but when we get into 3 and 4, I get so lost. Mainly because I was eight at the time, so many elements of the story went over my head. 

          Anyways, the game got me into wanting to create worlds with stories that take place in those worlds. For a while, I thought games were an excellent medium to do this with. In a way, games can tell a good story. At the same time, we have very few examples of storytelling in games. I might can recall a game with a complicated story that also has characters with depth, but could not tell you the actual plot. They just weren’t memorable enough. I think that’s mainly because the developers are telling stories incorrectly with games. It’s either cutscenes with character dialogue or moments of the game that stop the action to let text scroll across the screen. This effectively turned the game into a temporary movie. In fact, cinematics are what usually sell the game for people. I see Blizzard’s cinematic trailer for their newest WoW expansion Legion and think “Awesome movie. Where’s the gameplay?” After playing that game for years, I have yet to see it tell its story, let alone its lore, through gameplay. They have to stop everything to fill the players in on what’s going on.

          So what’s the best way to portray a story in a game? Through gameplay, of course! Let me just use Journey as an example. It’s simple, but I understand the sequence of events. The plot is basically this: you control a nomad in a red cloak. You must reach paradise at the end of your journey. You will brave strange lands and encounter marvelous things. But you also risk death before reaching your goal. The game’s story ends after the player reaches paradise and their final resting place. The game also has you start over from the very beginning which might imply reincarnation.

          How well do I remember the plot of this game? Almost perfectly. I remember walking through the sandy ruins, releasing some trapped sentient scarves (Banners? Rugs? I’m not entirely sure what they were), sliding through archways, avoiding draconic beasts, and braving the bitter cold of the wastelands. I especially recall making it to the very end and nearly dying. Then I awoke to paradise and flew through the air admiring all the colorful scenery and relishing in the gorgeous music. All of that was accomplished in ninety minutes of gameplay. No cutscenes, no dialogue, no QTEs, no cinematics, and no epic boss dropping twists in the plot whilst leaving around a bunch of plot holes to bait me into buying a sequel that may or may not ever come to be.

          Let’s do Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons next. This game was more about puzzle solving and using each brother to operate different mechanics. The plot is simple as well: their mother passed away and it left the younger brother depressed. Now their father is sick and both brothers have to find a cure. They encounter opposition in their travels, discover amazing places, become involved in other people’s conflicts, and even go through a life changing moment or two. I think the story itself might actually be about the little brother. The game starts with him mourning over his mother and it ends on a similar note. After his brother is gone, the little brother has to assume his role. Guess how I found that out? Whilst the little brother was by himself, he could not pass a certain obstacle without his big bro’s assistance. I pressed the button to operate the big brother (despite his absence) and the puzzle was solved. He literally had to become the older sibling now that he was alone. This was jaw-dropping; I hadn’t seen any other game portray and element of their story like this. Granted, some lines of text in games can blow your mind, but it felt more impactful when I realized what I had to do in order to progress.

          Those two games used their mechanics to tell their story. The plots were simple, but it still worked. Games may be at that stage where they can’t quite tell a complex story with mechanics alone, but they are getting closer and closer. For now, we still rely on text and cutscenes. If they work for your story, fine. Use them. If they detract from the plot and stop the player from being engaged with the game, they may just forget your game had a story in the first place.