Quite often, an indie game throws together some common gameplay, like roguelike shooter patterns, with little to explain it. eg, “You’re here to explore for treasure!” Other times, even AAA games go this route, assuming most players won’t care about the base story premise.
But there seems to be a significant contrast to well-developed worlds; like seeing the progressive cruelty of the Nazis in Wolfenstein before you start stabbing them, or seeing the Gommage in Expedition 33 before heading out to fight nevrons. Even more eldritch action-oriented games like DOOM benefited from establishing a “mood” of the Slayer being angry at demons and anyone who ignored warnings of them using just a few quick cutscenes.
This can be a bit of divergence from a game being “story-focused” or building up detailed lore. Some such games are often bad at motivation because the “story” is so confusing to players, most would just admit “I’m just going wherever bosses are to advance the story.” Some very dialogue-heavy games don’t necessarily captivate players on this level, since motivation can often be very simple. It goes back to the age-old strategy of arcade Donkey Kong; having 10 seconds at the beginning of the game where DK captures a princess who calls for help. The early version of the game likely didn’t even have that, and the designer felt motivation was missing. (That decision spawned its own issue, the Damsel in Distress trope, but that’s another topic)
As more conceptual ideas, and especially more perpetual live-service games, become more popular, I see this element of gaming going missing at all ranks of game development - which is a shame, because I think when written creatively, there are ways to set up player motivation through relatively few voice lines and short cutscenes; something going beyond “You are an amnesiac! This voice is telling you where to go. Don’t die to The Corporation!!”
To drive discussion: What are some games you bounced off of, that you think may have been because they were missing motivation? What games found you putting up with a mediocre gameplay experience because you were invested in the given story turnout?
Yes, very much so. I bounce off games quick if I don’t feel like I’m working towards something, even if I think it’s fun. I know many people get ticked off by games nowadays withholding content, but I have to admit I’m part of the problem. I need some sort of progression system, even if it’s a battlepass.
But I prefer something like what modern roguelikes tend to do, where you gradually work towards upgrades that make you stronger like Hades or sidegrades that get added to the pool like Risk of Rain or Slay the Spire. And typically these also unlock higher difficulties to keep the challenge on.
Another good example is Minecraft. I used to fall off of after “solving” the basic problems of building a base and getting better tools/armor, since the sandbox aspect couldn’t hold my interest. But I played a big modpack with friends that gave us all kinds of things to do, and I really liked the progression systems they added. You could build machines that required different fuels but could be used to make ore refinement progressively more efficient, or make a mecha suit with upgrade modules, or learn a spellcasting system, or build a remote-accessed inventory system with upgradable storage, or make a nuclear reactor for massive power. And many things were quality of life improvements that solved problems I wouldn’t have thought of, like adding a crafting table interface to item storage or auto-stepping over small ledges. It felt like there was always something to learn and improve on. It was perfect for someone who chases the sense of satisfaction from a goal being completed.