See, I love TW2, Mass Effect and ... Well generally games like that. But I just have to wonder whether I don't love them just because they're the best we've got so far - yes, dialogue is gameplay too. I've had this stance even in the time where people were likely to strangle me for it for whatever reason. On the other hand, the way games implement these features, dialogue and everything else are two distinct parts of gameplay, rarely interwoven in any meaningful way. For example, in The Witcher games, I can start attacking random strangers - but nobody will really care, and when I overdo it, the game will basically tell me 'Oh, no, you shouldn't do that. That's really not nice. Stop.' And nobody will mention it again. Now I'd basically like games to be shorter for all I care, but when I go on a killing spree, I'd like at least someone to remember it. When I opt for using signs in The Witcher 2, I want Triss comment on how clumsy yet efficient can my magic be, stuff like that. TES games tried to do this, and succeeded to an extent, the best examples to date would probably be New Vegas and Deus Ex tho.

Maybe have it so that after beating the game once make some of the filler combat skippable. Like how in some games you have to watch the story first time you play but after you see the cutscene once or bear the game you can skip them. If I already I know I can win a fight because I done it before and rather not do it again why not allow me to skip it?

There's a reality wall that story driven games bump into, sometimes awkwardly. Bethesda has full interactivity and repercussions because that's the style of game they design - go anywhere, do anything. This is Todd Howard's Mantra. But Mass Effect and Witcher are focused on getting you through the narrative, so in that context it makes no sense for Geralt to slay villagers or Shepard to go on a rampage. I agree there should be greater reactivity in those games, and that could be a fault of the game engine or writing limitations. It's nice to have the world and NPC's react dynamically to your character's actions. But even then there's going to be a framework that steers everything. CDPR will confront this issue head on in TW3 actually. We'll see if they can pull it off.

I thought that Arcanum and the first two fallouts did this fairly well as well. If you do really terrible things in Fallout 2 such as being a slaver it can affect conversations in much later cities for instance. Also, once you're seen as killing a single innocent NPC you lose reputation in that whole community in the Fallout games.Also, little things like the NPC commenting when you have no clothes. I thnk part of the advantage those games had is limited voice acting. In Witcher games and Mass Effect everything is voice acted so it is more costly to take all the variables into account like the main character having no clothes or having an intelligence score so low that everything the main character says is stupid.

Also Arcanum has my favorite integration of gameplay and story ever in a game. WARNING SPOILERS FOR ARCANUM






In Arcanum if you have Virgil with you at a certain story point he dies but you can actually revive him with a normal resurrection spell! AND if you have him with you at the final boss he actually comments about his experience being dead in the last conversation.





SPOILERS FOR ARCANUM are done.

I would love if more games did stuff like that make it so that the spells and gameplay are more integrated in the narrative itself.

But Elder Scroll games have no choice within the actual narrative itself from the dozens of hours I played. (always got bored before finishing any of the games. ) Most of the quests have only one way of doing them...The only choice is whether to do a quest or not, not how you actually do the quest. I prefer more small linear worlds such as ME, Witcher, AP, etc that give me more of a choice within the actual narrative itself.

Best compromise of both witcher/me and elder scrolls type of game design is probably Fallout New Vegas.

I had no idea about that Arcanum part yet I played through the game a few months ago, that's quite the inventive integration.

That reminds I should play the Fallout games, I've owned them here on GOG for a while now but ugh, getting them to work was a chore even though I actually like tweaking my games most of the time.

*Dishonored spoilers, probably*

It ... didn't, actually - it could have handled the endings better, but I feel Dishonored was very much within the shades of gray. Thing is, Dunwall was on the edge, and Corvo killing everybody didn't exactly help this delicate balance - thus 'chaos rating' as opposed to 'good and evil'. What you're doing in the game is neither good, nor evil. It's just either more fucked up or slightly less fucked up, and even that's arguable.

edit: Someone should severely punish everyone using silent protagonists, tho.

Like others said, different games do different things so we can't give them a single formula to stick to.

One thing I hate though, is when I say I like a game's story getting responses like: "if you like stories then read a book or watch a movie, this is game!". Of course, that's nonsense, and it's not unreasonable to expect that a game that bothers having a story also has a good one.

That being said, if a game has a good story it wouldn't be the same thing if it was a book or movie, if it was we'd have seen better adaptations by now. Games are a media inbetween books and movies: it has the advantage of the image like a movie, we can see that building, or that look or smile a character gives another that in a book it would take so many words and still might not convey it properly. But, like a book, we dictate our own rhythm; a movie keeps moving forward despite of you, but in a book you can savor every word and sentence for as long as you want, reread them, explore the writing in a way; games do that as well but in a more physical manner, even such a linear game like Bioshock Infinite gives you the option to stand still instead of moving forward, take a breath, walk into a sideroom and see or hear something interesting. So a story being made into a game, instead of something else, does have its advantages and I try to take them as they are.





On a side note about the other topics being discussed here: I very much liked Dishonored and, despite some lackluster voiceacting, I did enjoy the story and how a lot of it you experience naturally during play. I didn't enjoy Skyrim in that regard, it is fun thinking about all the crazy things that happen with you, like: "I was collecting butterflies on the forest when a dog came up to me and started talking!", but they feel more like shallow anecdotes than proper stories.

I do not mind a strong protagonist in the lead, in fact a game that I very much love, Red Dead Redemption, has one and I liked him so much that I made a point of never commiting a crime during my entire playthrough because I wanted to honor his desire to leave his criminal life behind. It was probably one of the few times where I actually role played in a game.

Finally, I hate it when a game gives you a cutscene when whatever it's showing could have been done in-game instead, part of why I seem to enjoy radio conversations in games.

I suppose so but when it comes to two different endings it usually feels like one is drawn to the "greater good" and the other "down right evil", obviously to make the endings as different as each as possible with the limitations of only two endings.

Oh, very much that.

Indeed. A good example is when you jump down with a certain augmentation in Deus Ex Human Revolution or use a simple takedown. It just pisses me off whenever something like that happens. Oh and radio conversations is a marvellous way of adding back-story to a game as you progress naturally on your own. The only problem with it is that I become neurotic to find all of them which can hamper my gameplay to a degree.

Actually, Dishonored had 3 endings, + variations of them based on what you did :-P Oh I love that game.

What?! Can you PM me a link to the 3rd ending?

Yeah, I hated that about Human Revolution, I really hope they move away from it on the next one.

You mean audiologs? I love those too, but I was talking about real time conversations, for example: instead of having a cutscene telling you to go somewhere they can just tell you over the radio and you never lose control over your character. Plus, if you are going to have your character otherwise silent during gameplay, having two characters conversing on the radio at the same time is a great way to do characterization.

Yes, I actually assumed you meant audiologs but yes, radio conversations in real-time is good too.