I think, if the data in the wiki is correct, namely the charts here, that action games are a bit over simplified. I want to know what the community thinks about this and if there is a chance to add more depth to it.
My concern is with the sliders, why is there a minus for Story? Meaning it should get 20% or less time? That is so 1980’s. Yes the game starts at that age but if you can’t implement stuff like genre needs getting deeper with time, then it should at least be neutral imho. If Half-Life didn’t have such a good story, would it still be the legend it was? Or what about Bioshock? That series is all about story. I mean it has better story than many RPG and adventure games. So maybe that slider can be reconsidered? In modern times, action games which are not casual or multi-player oriented rely heavily on story for a good single-player experience. And it has been that way since late 90’s I think. So maybe this should be discussed.
But even in Half Life Or Bioshock the relation of story development time to engine and gameplay was not more than 20%. Probably more like 5%. I would say the ratio is way overblown in favour of story in RPGs, which are mostly gameplay and engine features.
well seperate teams work on story and other elements too, but basically I think those percentages affect the review scores right? So if I focus on Story in an action game I would get a worse review. But those who actually do that, get amazing results. Though keeping the development time fixed is an over-simplification too. I would very much like to work 2 years instead of 1 for example, and release the best game possible. Instead of taking out features and dropping percentages. And with the right amount of money and fans, this works just great in real life anyway
And the RPG in Mass Effect is pretty rubbishy, except dialogues. Plus, I was talking about single-player action experiences where if you don’t have a strong story, you have to be a casual small-scale title. As for Large or mainly AAA games, a strong story is a must
I dont think so, the games you mention have a pretty good story, but they focused more on the engine and gameplay. Remember that you can put alot of story features into a AA game even with 20%.
Look at Pathologic, a medium or small game?, with pretty incredible story, but bad engine and gameplay, look at the reviews it got.
Of course for an action game, engine and gameplay are more important. I’m just saying %20 and less is a bit of an underestimation for modern single player action games, that’s all I think, depending on the topic, it could affect more. But of course that needs many gameplay changes but different topics should need different aspects anyway
I think he meant the real Bioshock game, which is marketed as a shooter. But I would still say the story part of the game did not take more than 20% of time alotted for story/engine/gameplay. Don’t forget that most of the stuff you call “story” that make Bioshock special fall under World Design (like the Rich back story feature) and other sliders in Game dev.
I think, depending on the topic, it could affect more. But of course that needs many gameplay changes but different topics should need different aspects anyway 
