Interactive Storytelling

[geldonyetich]

Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far?

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm].

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

 

[A1]

Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far?

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm].

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

 

[geldonyetich]

Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far?

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm].

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

Choosing non-action is still an action. You wouldn't have anything to say if you didn't have an opinion at this point.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

I'm working under the belief that Yahtzee isn't a complete tool who first says one thing and then says another at the end of his review. You think he just starts ranting at the beginning of every one of his reviews and goes from "as a game, is a pile of poo poo pancakes" to "this game keeps getting better and better" and because he's changing his mind? No, he has the whole thing written up from the start. When he said that, he meant it from beginning, the only reason he said it was getting better were due to the aspects that were not a game.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

Completely irrelevant considering I'm talking specifically about Heavy Rain being bad "as a game" and "a non-interactive story" and nothing else about any other game he ever said a word about.

 

[JupiterBase]

Patrol craft circling the debris field that mess up your lil salvage ship when you try to leave, thats what i would do anyway.

 

[A1]

Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far?

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter [http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm].

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

Choosing non-action is still an action. You wouldn't have anything to say if you didn't have an opinion at this point.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

I'm working under the belief that Yahtzee isn't a complete tool who first says one thing and then says another at the end of his review. You think he just starts ranting at the beginning of every one of his reviews and goes from "as a game, is a pile of poo poo pancakes" to "this game keeps getting better and better" and because he's changing his mind? No, he has the whole thing written up from the start. When he said that, he meant it from beginning, the only reason he said it was getting better were due to the aspects that were not a game.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

Completely irrelevant considering I'm talking specifically about Heavy Rain being bad "as a game" and "a non-interactive story" and nothing else about any other game he ever said a word about.

Yes I suppose choosing not to formulate an opinion would count as an action.

Making contrasting statements doesn't necessarily mean that he's changing his mind. It could simply mean that his opinion is simply complex.

But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

 

[rhizic]

Another fine point by yahtee there.... on fun space game,why not make the game about manuvering within the garbage to treasure hunt the crate? some post apolcolypse future where food and lasers are a special treat? so in your little lugger you gotta fly with skill around this 3d platform of changing upse and downs...err like descent.... also the ships got to be able to stop, to survey and take a break....

as for the boss, could it not be like sinistar? faster than you, so as soon as you break from cover it's all over your ass trying to gobble you up or what not? so your free to explore the vast nothing ness away from the wreckage but you better move your ass about it.....

really all depends on the context you put the game in.

oh and I'll have the check out the bar when I'm in oz in a few month...games, booze,, and hopfully some bar snacks = a happy boy.

 

[geldonyetich]

But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

Well, I'm under the "belief" that you wouldn't understand Yahtzee's opinion if he etched his answer into your forehead with a razor, in reverse, so you could read it in a mirror. That's probably where this discussion is going to end, because although Yahtzee had laid the matter out in very certain terms and I have expended a copious amount of my patience trying to clarify it for you, you seem as completely unwilling to make that cognitive leap. You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Honestly, this Generation Y tendency to think you can avoid any responsibility by feigning ignorance is wearing thin. Would not hire.

 

[Mike Lemmer]

Concerning the enemy spaceship: I would suggest explosive homing missiles with a large radius, but low damage. It could catch up to & hit a player as long as he was running away from it. Large explosion looks impressive, minor damage gives the player time to get back into a safe distance. Plus it gives a good reason for the ship not to fire it while the player's too close to it.

 

[webchameleon]

I always appreciated that Croshaw likes SH2 so much. I have yet to disagree with his opinion on what makes storytelling in games good and what players shouldN'T accept as the standard. And yeah, any game SHOULD be able to stand on single player alone.

(I can be agreeable sometimes.)

 

[TemplarofSteel]

In reading it I remember him commenting on his annoyance in a lot of games how when they did stealth if you fouled up once you'd die. His thoughts on that might want to be factored in to the insta-kill thing he was looking at if you didn't steer clear well enough (at least without providing a useful context, like your ship is damaged or something similar)

 

[Cralkk]

Your Fork game sounds a lot like Masq, except Masq probably has more then 64 endings.

You should review it
http://www.alteraction.com/

 

[A1]

But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

Well, I'm under the "belief" that you wouldn't understand Yahtzee's opinion if he etched his answer into your forehead with a razor, in reverse, so you could read it in a mirror. That's probably where this discussion is going to end, because although Yahtzee had laid the matter out in very certain terms and I have expended a copious amount of my patience trying to clarify it for you, you seem as completely unwilling to make that cognitive leap. You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Honestly, this Generation Y tendency to think you can avoid any responsibility by feigning ignorance is wearing thin. Would not hire.

That's the problem. This is Yahtzee's opinion so he is the only one who can truly clarify it. As opposed to anyone else, including you.

 

[F8L Fool]

It's pretty easy to half-heartedly discuss a concept as absurdly complex and difficult as altering who the killer in a game will be. I mean this isn't a game of Clue we're talking about, it's a multi-million dollar video game that has to appeal to the masses. If you were to make a game as complex as Yahtzee seems to believe "Heavy Rain" should've been, it would be ridiculously long, unjustly detached, and 99% of the content would undoubtedly be wasted on 99% of the gamer base.

Games like "Heavy Rain" are niche. So they do not have lavish budgets like mainstream games, and will never have a following like Final Fantasy, Zelda, etc. To implement enough features like Yahtzee idealizes is just unrealistic in an economical standpoint.

 

[Ferro]

Well, this is a first. I have to disagree with Mr. Yahtzee on his aspect of interactivity of Heavy Rain. While I think his unashamed fondle of SH2 is completely warrentied, but I cant shake the feeling that his is missing a major point. While I belive that the choices made by the player affecting the core story to the extent they do SH2 is a brilliant aspect of the game and it gives it a surrealistic thrill to the whole experience (a la David Lynch films), that might not wrok neccessarily well in creating a Hitchcockian supsense thriller (which I belive Heavy Rain is trying to do) with MacGaffins, red hearings, and the obligatory plot twists (which unfortunetly Heavy Rain failed, I think they forgot to hire a script supervisor which would have helped tremendously).

I belive there are so many other things wrong that could have been point out, like the bad MacGaffins, inconsistent script (I am all for "fuck exposition" but some of the scene did seem tacked on to give it more action for action sake that adds relatively nothing to the ongoing plot or have a subsequent payoff in main story arc) and last but not least the cringeworthy voicework (I had it dubbed in French which I think helped ameliorate that aspect a bit, but it's still got its low points). But Yahtzee might have point in that a film critc might be better suited for reviewing Heavy Rain.

 

[Dooly95]

I still disagree with your "the killer never changes complaint". A murder mystery where the killer is always different can never have the wonderful things such as "foreshadowing" and "subtle nods". Yes, you might not see a point to replaying it (I did see one, though) because it's practically always the same but changing the killer would mean screwing up the story.'

Actually, they could have, and it wouldn't have been particularly hard to do either, just more work.

With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.
The whole point of a detective story is that you're trying to figure out the killer.
If the killer is random, that won't work.
If the killer changes depending on your actions, that would totally fuck up the whole HR universe. IRL, the person responsible for JFK's assassination won't change no matter what I do.

IRL, you don't have any forms of re-doing any of the actions involved in the JFK assassination, so you CAN'T change it regardless of any actions you take.
However, this is a game. It resets everything back to wherever the game decides to start from. Taking the JFK example, if you knew the shooter was going to come from the road beforehand, you could block off that part of the road to 'foil' THAT part of the plan.

There is a difference between hard and impossible. Hard would of just taken more time.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I still disagree with your "the killer never changes complaint". A murder mystery where the killer is always different can never have the wonderful things such as "foreshadowing" and "subtle nods". Yes, you might not see a point to replaying it (I did see one, though) because it's practically always the same but changing the killer would mean screwing up the story.'

Actually, they could have, and it wouldn't have been particularly hard to do either, just more work.

With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.
The whole point of a detective story is that you're trying to figure out the killer.
If the killer is random, that won't work.
If the killer changes depending on your actions, that would totally fuck up the whole HR universe. IRL, the person responsible for JFK's assassination won't change no matter what I do.

IRL, you don't have any forms of re-doing any of the actions involved in the JFK assassination, so you CAN'T change it regardless of any actions you take.
However, this is a game. It resets everything back to wherever the game decides to start from. Taking the JFK example, if you knew the shooter was going to come from the road beforehand, you could block off that part of the road to 'foil' THAT part of the plan.

There is a difference between hard and impossible. Hard would of just taken more time.

In the world of the game, the murders began three years beforehand. So, the murderer is already established.

 

[Chrissyluky]

Honestly even if there wasnt much game in heavy rain it moved me. This is one of the few games that can go just on story alone. I only watched a walkthrough because i dont own a ps3 and even i felt the suspense and i was just watching someone play. I hope to see more of these games as these devs did a fantastic job.(also survival horror sandbox from what ive seen doesnt work but goodluck)

 

[Robert0288]

You can still make it insta-kill if you leave the area. If the player is starting to approach the edge of the area you want him to stay in, send him a report from, either a passerby, near by planet, or w/e saying that

a) They are part of a convoy that is under attack by a large number of ships and being destroyed. Player continues, they get insta-popped by giant fleet

b) Station reports a large solar flare that was just let off. If player continues they get irradiated and insta-die

c) you can always resort to an environmental barrier of somesort, gravity well because of a black hole, inpassible nebula, semi-passible nebula only with equipment found later on in the game. Astroid belt with lots of micro-meteors which your ship scanners are unable to detect and will kill you

List is potentially endless. I like the first 2, as they arn't very area spesific and the player only runs into them if they go looking for certain death, they can also be used as part of the story, or side quest later on. I would also say it adds to the immersion as it will feel to the player as they are not the only ones in the world to be doing something at the moment.

I doubt Yatzee even reads all these posts, but if he does. Good article.

 

[VeNT666]

btw for the game.
how about outside x area you're gonna get killed off by micro meteorites or radiation?