And that's a perfect metaphor, if every sentence had to mention someone shooting guns or someone dying, it would definitely devolve into crass and muddled story.
Thanks for the link, I think I've read articles about that article, but I'm glad to read the original. Hocking really sums it up nicely about Bioshock, "we are mocked after a 20 hour commitment for having sympathy for the limitations of a medium. The ‘twist’ in the plot is a dues ex machina built upon the very weaknesses of game stories that we – as players – agree to accept in order to have some sort of narrative framework to flavor our fiddling about with mechanics. To mock us for accepting the weaknesses of the medium not only insults the player, but it’s really kind of ‘out of bounds’"
And when you say you can't kill a child, I think that's Bioshock's biggest failing. I would way prefer a more nuanced decision, one with no right or wrong answer. Or maybe, if you saved the children, you couldn't use plasmids. That would be a REAL choice.
With your MGS 2 example, I would say the gameplay actually shapes the narrative quite a bit. The story is off-the-walls bonkers. I cannot stress how ridiculous the narrative is. But all I remember about the story is being confused. What really stuck with me is doing naked cartwheels, playing as a character I DID NOT WANT TO PLAY AS, and fighting Dr. Octopus on the roof of the capital building. Kojima wanted to tell a story that made you question reality, a post-modern story. But he also made you question reality through the gameplay as well.
You need both story and gameplay to make a smart game, but I would suggest gameplay is by far more important. The focus should be 90% on gameplay and 10% on narrative. It's too bad many developers seem to try telling stories with their priorities the other way around."














