Crysis 2 Writer: Halo is "Full of Bullsh*t"

[CuddlyCombine]

Oh, get over yourself. The only one who thinks this game is going to be the second coming is you and you listening to other people who didn't go and read the interview. He never says that, he's making statements about story-telling and the overuse of archetypes within stories without building actual characters off of them. This is something a lot of video games do and everyone here knows that. (Much as they seem to be trying to ignore it.)

He actually mentions games that he likes, games with good storytelling like Bioshock and Uncharted 2. In the interview he spends more time talking about those games than he does about Crysis. You're taking this out of context and getting worked up over nothing.

All he's saying is that storytelling in video games could be better and you know what? It really could be.

I've invented this thing I want to tell you about. It's called "exaggeration". I know full-well that he doesn't actually think his game will be the greatest thing ever, but he's talking about this like nobody else has ever noticed it. I understand that hoping that you can use your space-marine archetype as the crutch for an entire storyline is foolish, and, yes, game writers are guilty of this, but this is the equivalent of a well-known scientist going on air to say that the semi-truck belching exhaust on your street is causing global warming. We know that already. The reason it's not going to change is because there's an established, easy practice that nobody has to worry about messing up.

Look at Modern Warfare or Halo. They've got decent gameplay and replayability without having mind-blowing plots. The formula works. I'm just bothered with the endless stream of "your game doesn't have enough plot" criticism flowing around when that's something that probably won't ever change; the community is split into two camps on this, so what's the point?

Oh, and Crysis 2 is legitimately the second coming.

 

[nightwolf667]

Oh, get over yourself. The only one who thinks this game is going to be the second coming is you and you listening to other people who didn't go and read the interview. He never says that, he's making statements about story-telling and the overuse of archetypes within stories without building actual characters off of them. This is something a lot of video games do and everyone here knows that. (Much as they seem to be trying to ignore it.)

He actually mentions games that he likes, games with good storytelling like Bioshock and Uncharted 2. In the interview he spends more time talking about those games than he does about Crysis. You're taking this out of context and getting worked up over nothing.

All he's saying is that storytelling in video games could be better and you know what? It really could be.

I've invented this thing I want to tell you about. It's called "exaggeration". I know full-well that he doesn't actually think his game will be the greatest thing ever, but he's talking about this like nobody else has ever noticed it. I understand that hoping that you can use your space-marine archetype as the crutch for an entire storyline is foolish, and, yes, game writers are guilty of this, but this is the equivalent of a well-known scientist going on air to say that the semi-truck belching exhaust on your street is causing global warming. We know that already. The reason it's not going to change is because there's an established, easy practice that nobody has to worry about messing up.

Look at Modern Warfare or Halo. They've got decent gameplay and replayability without having mind-blowing plots. The formula works. I'm just bothered with the endless stream of "your game doesn't have enough plot" criticism flowing around when that's something that probably won't ever change; the community is split into two camps on this, so what's the point?

Oh, and Crysis 2 is legitimately the second coming.

And my point is that it can change if consumers want it to. The fact that Crytek even hired Morgan is a sign that they are beginning (or at least trying) to take the story side of the game seriously. With the rampant success of Bioware and the acclaim they are receiving for their "deep" stories and "character development" devs seem to be starting to see that story is an important part of the game. They've also realized that they aren't skilled enough to do it themselves so they are turning to an outside source. This is good.

Morgan's main point in his interview was that games can be all about shooting shit while still having a deep, moving story and complex characters without one having to detract from the other. I think that's great, I don't know whether or not he'll achieve this in Crysis 2 but I appreciate the attempt and the attitude. There seems to be a general idea that you can't have both (one expressed by the interviewer in his questions) but really it's just about looking at it a little differently. Different isn't bad.

I'm sorry if I seemed a little harsh, but I've been making this same point to people since 10 AM. No one is listening, they just seem to want to ***** like little school children who've just been told that there's no Santa Claus. Repeating the same thing in the same thread more than five times can be irritating and I'm at the end of my rope.

 

[Starke]

Oh, get over yourself. The only one who thinks this game is going to be the second coming is you and you listening to other people who didn't go and read the interview. He never says that, he's making statements about story-telling and the overuse of archetypes within stories without building actual characters off of them. This is something a lot of video games do and everyone here knows that. (Much as they seem to be trying to ignore it.)

He actually mentions games that he likes, games with good storytelling like Bioshock and Uncharted 2. In the interview he spends more time talking about those games than he does about Crysis. You're taking this out of context and getting worked up over nothing.

All he's saying is that storytelling in video games could be better and you know what? It really could be.

I've invented this thing I want to tell you about. It's called "exaggeration".

Invention implies, you know, that you discovered something. Someone invented the hex shaped pencil, the Paperclip, the Internet[footnote]It is still fun to mock Al Gore for that one.[/footnote] and so on. Hyperbole is a literary tradition that literally predates western civilization. You did not invent it.

I know full-well that he doesn't actually think his game will be the greatest thing ever, but he's talking about this like nobody else has ever noticed it.

A lot of this comes from the fact that no one really has. I mean, at least not at a professional level. It is easy to point at Doom and say, "yeah, its got a shitty story", but, to have a professional writer actually look at the industry leaders and say what they do right, and what they do wrong? Yeah, I can't remember seeing that before.

I understand that hoping that you can use your space-marine archetype as the crutch for an entire storyline is foolish, and, yes, game writers are guilty of this, but this is the equivalent of a well-known scientist going on air to say that the semi-truck belching exhaust on your street is causing global warming.

As a personal, quick aside, the powered armor space marine dates back, at least to the 1950s, and as I recall, actually further back.

We know that already. The reason it's not going to change is because there's an established, easy practice that nobody has to worry about messing up.

Actually, they have a big incentive. You can look at the game industry as a zero sum game. In this enviornment, it is necessary to improve your work or be consumed. We've seen this happen with studios shutting down left and right. The old ways of making games just aren't cutting it, meanwhile Bioware is ridding high on their supposedly fantastic writing in their games. In this environment, a shift to professional writers is, basically, inevitable. And Morgan is the first example of this we've seen.

Look at Modern Warfare or Halo. They've got decent gameplay and replayability without having mind-blowing plots.

Traditionally, gameplay and tech have been the cornerstones of the industry. However, that really isn't cutting it anymore. Bioware, and for that matter Irrational Games have both had phenomenal success, which gets attributed to their writing. I'm not saying the brainless shooter is going anywhere anytime soon, (for godsake there's another Serious Sam title in near release) rather, we're going to see improved writing. Unless, somehow Crysis 2 crashes and burns spectacularly, which I somewhat doubt will happen.

The formula works. I'm just bothered with the endless stream of "your game doesn't have enough plot" criticism flowing around when that's something that probably won't ever change; the community is split into two camps on this, so what's the point?

The point is analysis. It's taking the various components of the current gaming environment and extrapolating what is going to happen next. Basically, the perception today is, the existing formula no longer works, so, it's time to find one that does. This, is an attempt to restructure the formula. And, really, this is occurring at a managerial level you and I have no direct influence over. So arguing that nothing will change only serves to demonstrate a myopia to the nature of the gaming industry.

Oh, and Crysis 2 is legitimately the second coming.

K.

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

snip

Point to where I disagree with him. I agree Halo had poor storytelling, I would not call it bullshit because it did its job, however it needed several novels to be fully understood. I like it but acknowledge it is rather flawed. For example Truth's character does a total 180 from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

That doesn't make Mr Morgan any less of a prick. Maybe he is a talented prick, I don't know, all I know is he seems like a prick.

So thanks for the insults, really nice of you.

 

[Starke]

snip

snip

Point to where I disagree with him. I agree Halo had poor storytelling, I would not call it bullshit because it did its job, however it needed several novels to be fully understood.

Well, given that he didn't call it bullshit either, nor did he call it full of bullshit, I'd wager you still haven't read the interview itself, have you?

I like it but acknowledge it is rather flawed. For example Truth's character does a total 180 from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

That doesn't make Mr Morgan any less of a prick. Maybe he is a talented prick, I don't know, all I know is he seems like a prick.

Yeah, if you'd read the interview, you might know more by now. He can be a bit of a dick, I've no doubt, but, that's not what's going on here.

So thanks for the insults, really nice of you.

I'm a little sorry. I'm tired, and I'm really tired of people who haven't looked at the interview, or looked beyond the original post. Who then post their opinions based on a biased source that actually made up quotes to get attention. It was shitty journalism on the part of the interviewer, and its shitty debate tactics from people who don't bother to read up.

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

I read the escapist article, forgive me for having things to do (that sounds snarky but I can't think of a way to re-write it, I'm not trying to be snarky). I'm not overly intrested in this story and have no reason to go through the entire interview. I can see that you are intrested in this and so I apologize for my statement if it was based on incorrect information/presentation as you claim.

I no longer hold the opinion that Mr Morgan is a prick, but I no longer care what he has to say, so further discussion would be wasting our time. Sorry.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Telling it like it is. I like this guy.

 

[Legion]

You're right, everyone is entitled to their on opinion, the difference is, yours is, objectively wrong.

Again. Accounting for the fact that this is your opinion, it is, objectively wrong. The easiest way to examine this actually comes from Richard Morgan, who observed: "It made no sense. It was totally implausible. It doesn't resolve. Basically, all the things that bad storytelling does. I just think they were way too impressed with themselves and that's always a danger. It's just unfortunate." (He was talking about MW2, but ME2 suffers from the same problems.)

There is no such thing as an "objective opinion".

You found Mass Effect 2's plot confusing? That would say enough for me to not carry on but I shall say no more about that.

You are saying that a Sci-Fi set in the future is "implausible", do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Of course it didn't bloody resolve, it's part two of a trilogy. It's like complaining 'The Empire Strikes Back' didn't resolve, it's not supposed to.

Given that I know you can't do better, I guess you can expect to be taken exactly that seriously.

Though, on second thought, given that he is, you know, a published author, and you are, you know, not. I would suspect that based on your scale of "being taken seriously" he's a more credible source than you.

Based upon what exactly? What else have I apparently written that has offended you? I am starting to think this is more of a personal jab at me rather than a reasoned argument.

I would also like to know how exactly you came to the logic that I am not an author, I don't recall every saying what my career is on this site.

Your obvious retort would be "The way you write", which is to be expected of you based upon the maturity of your response so far.

Andraste actually makes a pretty good point there. You might want to learn from it, Machines.

My point was exactly the same but with different wording, so I am now pretty certain this is personal rather than you trying to have a proper debate.

EDIT: I take that back, it seems from other posts that you are simply trying to be as confrontational as possible, so unless you can actually respond in a civilised manner then I suggest you don't bother.

It occurs to me that if a game needs a series of books to tell a story, its storytelling must not have been very good.

Indeed. Although that's what's the most frustrating about them, they had these brilliant ideas they explored in the books, but for some bizarre reason they completely ignored them when it came to the game.

 

[Asehujiko]

Did they fire Cevat and replace him with this guy as the company's resident whiner?

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Because then it would relate to the topic (a.k.a. the cited interview) in the first place?

my comment was not about whether his statement had merit or not but rather about his motivation for making this statement and a similar one just a day before.

ie: if a girl flashes her tits at a crowd, the quality of said tits don't really affect the fact that she's an attention whore.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Crysis 2 had better have a better story than the first one, I gag when I think about it haha.

 

[Susurrus]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong the guy is an idiot.

Bioshock had lots of people talking about it because it was the successor to System Shock 2, and because the team had good advertisers. When people got their hands on it, most people went "Meh."

Furthermore, Crysis's story was generic, archetypal rubbish, same for Far Cry. Crysis only got good publicity because of how it looked.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Personally I think most of the people here are acting like greater asses then this guy.

Where the hell does it say a guy (who actually WORKS in the videogame industry) is not allowed to blatantly say "Halo mechanics good, story and character dev. = bad"?

In a truly rational world people SHOULD turn around and say every standard of service, product, or political policy is 'shit' and can be done better. In fact, that's primarily one of the ways Humanity continues to develop both technologically and socially. By critically analysing the shortfalls of a mainstream product or service, so that one can attempt to create something BETTER.

Hats off to him. He's gunning to create a better experience than Halo provided ... (Which imho isn't that hard) ...

Every other naysayer is either a fanboy, or somebody who doesn't understand the fundamentals of critical analysis.

S. Y on 'Experienced Points' wrote a good article about this sort of displayed behaviour last week. Suggest you pick it up.

Taking the Yahtzee view that critics are the very embodiment of human development, eh? It's cool, I can understand that.

But there's quite a thick line between constructive criticism and just being an ass. Maybe if he'd refrained to referring to everything as 'bullshit'. If criticism is necessary, it should come from the audience, not from a very biased third party. Like when you were back in school, if the teacher suggested improvements that was fine, but if a fellow student dismissed your work because he thought he could do better he would just come off sounding like a prick.

This sentence pretty much summarises his arrogance:
"I understand that there are player who are like that," he said, "but if that's really all you want, crank up the PS1 and play Doom or whatever."
I'm sorry, gamers who are uninterested in story lines in your shooters, Richard Morgan has just declared you obsolete. No more current generation shooters for you.

I'm not taking any view other than my own and a million other academics out there. I'm stating a *fact* that without critical analysis you lack the ability to improve upon an existing ideology, standard, treatise or praxeological modus operandi.

If you're of the category that believes 'games are art', then you must also assume that a standard of gameplay should be artistic. That it should impart a narrative no differently then other media (such as books, movies and televised series) COMBINED with interactive gameplay.

To address your second point, if I were to write a book on Voltaire's 'Essai sur les moeurs et l'espirit des nations' who would I choose to take criticism from?

The idiot on the street corner saying "Dude ... not cool ... so boring man...." or another Historian such as a lecturer or academic researcher?

HE'S BIASED ... like every other intellectual on the planet. Academics fight like cats in a bloody bag, particularly in the Arts and Humanities. But hell even in the SCIENTIFIC community you get SERIOUS bitchslapping between the intelligentsia of the various Sciences.

The public opinion, in most cases, is WRONG. Great movies won't be seen because 'transformers' is screening at the same time and idiots will go see that instead.

Likewise, great games won't be played because mediocre games of 'super-hype' levels (Like every single Halo/spinoff game after the first) is being released at the same time and most kiddies need to bug mum to buy them something.

Seriously ... the biggest problem with games is that a huge community of the people that play them are CHILDREN who are more infatuated with pretty lights than engrossing characters and a well told narrative.

Personally, I am going to give a hell of alot more credence to the veteran game writer then I am even the 'general public' ... if only because 20% of that general public still huggles 'Mr Wubsy' before going to bed and needs a nightlight.

Hell, get Bungie's creative staff vs. Crysis' creative staff to have a ***** about each of their 'paradigm restructuring' games and that would be a cause for win. Two teams of intellectuals bitching about how cruddy eachother's games are. That would still be far better than 1/4 of the "general public's" opinions.

 

[PhiMed]

He's talking an awful lot of smack for a guy who's making a sequel to a tech demo.

 

[stabnex]

Bioshock, good. Dead Space, okay. Halo, shit. Call of Duty, get the hook. Crysis? I dunno, haven't played it yet because I don't play shooters on PC. Make a PS3 port of it and I'll give it a try. Till then this guy can fuck off with his irrelevant opinions.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Fire up Doom on the PS1? Morgan is obviously heavily into video games to make such an astute statement. And I'm a sarcastic bastard who doesn't like some guy who doesn't know that much about games telling me what I should play. He also doesn't believe that people who buy games will ignore 50% of the content? Many people who buy games are more than happy to ignore a much larger proportion than that. Games are not novels.

If the guy doesn't understand what Halo did well then he is missing a trick. I guess that we will see if the end result of Crysis 2 is more successful than other people who took on Halo with professional writers and scorn for Halo like the team who made Haze.

 

[Vrex360]

While I would strongly disagree with him on the storytelling element and characters (frankly I've yet to find another character in a linear FPS that I liked as much as the Arbiter) I can sort of see why he would think that. Halo however, I do not just take as a series of games, but also as books and a lot of branching out media... hell there were even some decent animated movies as well as some live action short clips.
Point is, I still find the Halo lore very deep and fun to get into, but given that the surface appears to just be a straight up action game I can't really blame him for not looking deeper.... save for that if he missed Halo 2 and that whole section with the Arbiter then that's the only way I can understand why he wouldn't at least acknowledge that the plot does not go on a linear path,

 

[Korten12]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong the guy is an idiot.

Bioshock had lots of people talking about it because it was the successor to System Shock 2, and because the team had good advertisers. When people got their hands on it, most people went "Meh."

Furthermore, Crysis's story was generic, archetypal rubbish, same for Far Cry. Crysis only got good publicity because of how it looked.

uhhh.... most people really liked Bioshock. Also Crysis didnt get only good reviews becuase of graphics, it got good publicity becuase of graphics and good gameplay.

 

[HentMas]

i dont like this guy, it sounds like a marketing stunt, i remember people where saying that MewTwo had an AWESOME story, but it all fell trough, now with Cry2 i feel compelled to say, its going to be the same... but now i have to buy the damn game to really know dont i??

ah, well, i was planning on buying it anywhay.

 

[HentMas]

but also as books and a lot of branching out media... hell there were even some decent animated movies as well as some live action short clips.
Point is, I still find the Halo lore very deep and fun to get into, but given that the surface appears to just be a straight up action game I can't really blame him for not looking deeper.... save for that if he missed Halo 2 and that whole section with the Arbiter then that's the only way I can understand why he wouldn't at least acknowledge that the plot does not go on a linear path,

ok, now Vrex, while i agree with most of your opinion, i have to say that if a game fails to deliver a good story in... well... the game, having books, and other media filling the gaps does not make for a good story, i know the arbiter is an amazing character, but i also notice that he might be the only one

and another thing, you talk about "Lore" but in Video Games, Lore comes from what happens "In-Game" filling the holes with books and animated videos is not good Game story telling, and with todays advancements in VG, i dont know why we have to keep our stories on our books and our games on our consoles, there could be a very good story in a video game (like say in Bioware games) or ok, lets go to a more known example, Half Life, its a really good story telling, i know everything of what´s happened and i feel compelled to know more because of what happened in the game, comparing it to Halo, well, i still dont have a frikken idea of how it all started (the war with the aliens) or why should i care, who shot first? (for example) i might find out reading a book, but thats not a good story in a videogame its a good book made from a video game

no offence intended Vrex (i too love Halo, and i to know more about the lore and stuff, but still, its not a good story in the game, its a good story as a WHOLE)