Hi there, I thought I would try my hand at putting a few ideas online. These are ideas that I really want to talk about but don't seem to find the time to talk about. They might also be concepts that I do get to talk about from time to time, but don't get to go into as much depth as I would like. I imagine this will often look at game design, but I might go into other topics too.
Ludonarrative dissonance
So if your looking at the title and thinking WTF does Ludonarrative mean then don't worry it's much simpler than it looks, in fact you have likely thought about the concept but didn't know it had a name. If you do recognize that name than you likely have some background in game design. If you look at the image to the left you should have a clear enough picture of what this is. In short it simply refers to when the game play doesn't match the story it's telling.
In the image here it basically says the only way through this door is to be a master lock smith. Yet we are looking at half a wooden door, that most people could likely push open. See it's not really a new concept to most people, just a term we can use to talk about it. It was coined by Clint Hocking while at LucasArts in 2007 (yep very quick google search for that one), but the concept has been around for some time.
You tend to see this a lot in RPGs, particularity near the end of the game or when dealing with a major villain. Often times you fight the big baddy rather early into the game and you might be able to hurt them or you might see them destroy a city in a cut scene. But for the rest of the game you don't see them do anything this powerful especially when you fight them.
This doesn't just apply with villains in these games you often start out very weak and grow to be one of the greatest warriors, sometime even on par with gods. Now this is done because people like seeing their character grow, after all that is one of the major drives behind an RPG. The sense of mastery and growth is core to many games and at the end of the game it's really nice to see just how powerful you have become (often in a cut scene or scripted event).
From a game play perspective these are often lacking. Often times when you see a character demonstrate a power like this it is done in a cut scene, or a scripted event at a special location. And you will find enemy encounters between these where you will think "Man I could just end this guy if the game would let me use that cool beam of light like I did just a few minutes ago". There lies one of the biggest marks against these super moves, it pulls you out of the game. You are no longer thinking of how you will survive, what your character is doing, or about the story but rather why the game has an arbitrary rule that wont let you use your new power. Some games will have a plot point about why this is limited, the character will get exhausted, its dangerous, or it can only be used at some points on the map. These all work to help solve this problem.
What about when games do let you use the move in battle? This largely depends on what the ability does it. Some times its a big one hit move that makes the encounter meaningless. And this is lame because you've basically said "Hey you have played the game enough, you can rush to the end now." These abilities don't always end up this way though, movement skills often come to mind (though this does depend on the game) such as the "Mark of Serenity" in Mark of the Ninja that allows a short range blink. This is unlocked near the end of the game and it does make many things easier but not completely trivial. In order to use this mark you have to give up one of your two item slots.
I talked a bit about super moves that are often used in game, but I don't want to give the impression that this is limited to big super powerful beams that destroy planets. One of the most common examples of this across gaming is the the revive, in Final Fantasy this is called the Phoenix Down. Like the image to the right says, if they die for the narrative there is no hope of returning. In this case it is clear why, in the story losing a character can be very important and help drive emotion. Where as in games you need room to screw up and lose a character (unless your Fire Emblem or Darkest Dungeon).
This isn't just for video games though, and you have likely seen something similar in movies, TV shows, and books too. What prompted me to write this was the CW show "The Flash", if you don't know what this is it's a show based off the DC comic's character by the same name. He can run really fast, and stops bad guys. The problem comes with just how fast he can run, almost the speed of light and fast enough to go back in time, and rewrite history. It's really hard to see how this person has any real trouble when most of his enemies are stuck at a human pace. Granted the big baddies are all about speed, and the show seems to have learned it's lesson on time travel, but it does really limit what kind of villains can be a plausible threat when he could stop them before they literally even know it. This is where suspension of disbelief comes in.
But why is this done? It can be from many things, poor writing for sure, but in games you need to remember it's gameplay above all else. You might need to sacrifice some elements of story in order to make sure the gameplay is what you are looking for. In real life you can't soak bullets or simply eat food to heal, but that makes for better gameplay so we let it slide. Often times games will go for a more cartoony art style in order to let them slide on the realism. Most people don't want to spend 20 minutes preparing and cooking food just to gain back a few hearts. As long as it feels like it fits into the world you have created you shouldn't need to worry, and you can deliver on the experience you are shooting for.