DannibalG36 said:
There is one word for this guy: arrogant. Well, Mr. Morgan, you had better hope to heaven that Crysis 2 has a good story, or I will personally hunt you down for being a pompous d*^$khead. Halo's story is "bulls^&t"? What? Since when did an epic story arc that delivers an awesome (yet simple) narrative become bulls^&t?
Yeah, see. HE NEVER FUCKING SAID THAT.
DannibalG36 said:
True, Master Chief is never fully characterized and is never given a face, BUT this makes him a much more relatable character. Why? His lack of a face allows gamers to place themselves in his boots and in his helmet with ease, since there is little already occupying the Chief's armor.
I resent the implication that I cannot be expected to relate to a character if they have a personality. Seriously though, the quote closest to the headline is "Halo is full of these bullshit archetypal characters." You know what? He's right. There's no character development, at least not that I can recall. It's either a flaw in the structure or an endearing trait. Which it ends up being is entirely personal opinion.
DannibalG36 said:
Secondly, Mr. Morgan must remember that games are about GAMEPLAY, not the story. If I want a book, I'll go to the library; if I want a magnificent story, I'll read the Silmarillion or Absalom, Absalom. If I want to have some fun, I'll get a game.
Yeah... see... if you're going to tear into someone, at least do your fucking research first. He is arguing that you
can have a story
and good gameplay. There's no reason it has to be one and not the other. That's like saying I really like coffee, but I can't have coffee if I'm going to eat a doughnut. It's not the same fucking thing, and they're not exclusive. Which is exactly what he's arguing.
If you want a magnificent story and you go to the Silmarillion you're going to be really fuckin' disappointed. You know why? Because it's the unfinished notes of a guy who was too much of a perfectionist to settle on something and publish it.
DannibalG36 said:
What makes a game fun? Shooting a gun is fun. Solving a puzzle is fun. Using the Gravity Gun to blow a hapless Civil Protection guard into a wall of the Citadel is fun. Putting three rounds into a Grunt's methane tank and sticking him with a plasma grenade is wicked fun. A story just gives a reason for whatever fun I'm having. Why am I solving this puzzle? Why am I in the Citadel, fighting Civil Protection? Why am I shooting the Grunt? These are the questions a story answers; in other words, a story gives my fun a reason.
What's funny here is you've given two examples where the key to the writing is as much in the atmosphere it generates. Without the setting, which is a product of art design and writing, Half-Life 2 would have been forgotten within a year or two. The story, and the way its portrayed are the reasons the game is still around. The way the story in the original Half-Life informed the game design is the only reason we have a Half-Life 2 at all, for that matter.
DannibalG36 said:
This, Mr. Morgan, is what Halo's story did well. It gave me a reason to smear an Elite's guts on a rock face, a reason to get off the Pillar of Autumn in a Warthog, a reason to take out that Scarab. Halo gave the player a gun and told him to save the universe, lest humanity perish at the hands of an alien race. Cliche? Yes. Awesome? HELL YEAH (and don't say it isn't, because just about every other sci-fi shooter does the same thing, be it Half-Life or Mass Effect).
Who said Crysis wasn't awesome? I mean the story is cliched as fuck, and the gameplay is a little unintuitive at times. But, seriously, it's an awesome game. Crysis Warhead was even more awesome. Awesome isn't an absolute state. With a good story to back it, an average game becomes good. A good game gets better. A really good game becomes fucking awesome, and a fucking awesome game blows your goddamn mind.
Let's look at two examples.
Half Life 2. As a shooter it's above average. Nothing to write home about. The gravity gun was novel, but it wasn't really a surefire component of the success. (Look at all the games that aped it, Doom3 for example, that didn't benefit from it.) What really nails HL2 into the awesome category is the story, as it's presented. Some of that isn't traditional writing, but it works, and that is why we remember it six years later.
Bioshock. Okay, frankly, as a shooter, an RPG, or survival horror Bioshock is a wreck. The Difficulty is non-existant. The shooter mechanics are bland. The RPG system isn't roleplaying. There's really no specialization options that define who your character is. As survival horror it's way too fucking easy. And yet it's 2007's game of the year. Why? Because of the story. The story and the toys you play with make the game fantastic. Without a good story, this game would have been as completely overlooked as System Shock and SS2.
DannibalG36 said:
So, Mr. Morgan, don't knock a story that gives excellent support to one of the greatest gameplay experiences in the industry. You're either extremely naive or a newcomer to the gaming industry. Love or hate Halo, you've got to respect it.
Honestly, I don't. I'm not Mr. Morgan. Unlike him, I'm not a newcomer to the game industry. But, like Mr. Morgan, I understand something critical. There's nothing special about Halo. If you were ten years older you'd probably understand, but Halo wasn't new. It streamlined some features, and polished the gameplay. But it wasn't new or revolutionary in the way the original Half-Life was. It's predecessor, Marathon has a more developed narrative, was more revolutionary, and it still gives you a justification to shoot things, but it does all of this without sacrificing it's tone setting weird acid trip narrative.
The only people who "[have] got to respect Halo." Are Xbox fanboys who were first introduced to the FPS through Halo, and the Journalists they flame for questioning the hegemony of their sacred cow.
.
