The whole "Desmond: man of the future" crap should never have been in AC to begin with. It's the anchor around this franchise neck.Buckett said:AC2 had a shitty ending that tried to connect the time you spent as Ezio to Desmond and the future. I get that they had to somehow tie everything to Desmond, but how did that shit make any sense and left me pissed off. The game was good but the ending left me staring at the screen for an hour thinking "really, thats how you want to go out?" Seriously though, how is Desmond supposed to solve this problem. How can he and his scientist buddies restore Earths magnetic field or whatever it was? No amount of stabbing Templars in cool ways is going to fix that (unless the universe had a specific stabbing quota that Desmond must meet before it decides not to destroy the planet).
Bottom line: great game, terrible ending. How the hell are they gonna pull AC3 off?
Brutal Legend YAY! The story in that game is so damn perfectly constructed and brilliant. That, and it can be hilarious at times. My favourite ending is still RDR though. I've never hated a fictional character as much as I did at the end of that game.dunnace said:Ocarina of time has a deadly ending. Tear jerking indeed.
Also, Brutal Legend had a pretty amazing ending in my opinion, the twist was good and the acting superb.
But the difference between a painter and a game writer is that even if the painter never achieves popularity in their life-time, they still have completed works that can be appreciated as they are. Unless the game writer makes their own games, then any stories that are rejected will never see the light of day, since they won't have a game to be a part of, and without a game to go with it the story can't be enjoyed or appreciated in any meaningful way.BloodSquirrel said:No it isn't. Van Gogh didn't "line the pockets of the corporations" either, yet, somehow, his work got by.oranger said:When I said "you can't make it big..." I meant there is and will be no great game writers until something in the field changes. As it is, a potential Van Gogh level writer will simply have his "paintings" thrown out instead of being passed from gallery to gallery until they achieve acclaim,
because there is no interest in a writer becoming great. That won't line the pockets of the corporations and trends that currently control the industry.
That's objective reality.
Art having to work within such a system is not new. You know Shakespeare, the OMG greatest write of all time? His plays were considered popular entertainment in his day. They were written for the crowds.
Great writing in video games exists. It has managed to sell. It has even managed to sell well enough to get people to buy suplimental fiction.
That makes sense. I was always under the impression that Spector was a major proponent of the Deus Ex and Deus Ex:IW backstories, which is why he's afforded a somewhat celebrity status. Indeed, the DX:IW story was quite a broad and logical extension to that of DX, and it was mainly the claustrophobic level design that was a let down in the sequel.Starke said:Based on interviews. He did, and the rest of his design team needed to drag him away from the keyboard in order to get him to scale down some of the intended set-pieces into something manageable.oranger said:Warren Spector didn't write them, did he? I heard he designed the game, and hadn't written it.Atmos Duality said:(Excerpt from the article. Naturally.)Yahtzee Croshaw said:snip
Reminds me heavily of Deus Ex's ending(s). Proof that Warren Spector actually did know what the hell he was doing.
The initial idea of Deus Ex was originated by Warren Spector in 1994 while he worked for Origin Systems. His original conception of what would become Deus Ex was entitled Troubleshooter. After finishing development of System Shock, Spector had tired of straight fantasy and science fiction and he "got obsessed with this sort of millennial weirdness" leading to the conspiracy focused storyline for the game. He stated in April 2007 to PC Zone magazine:
I was a huge believer in the 'immersive simulation' game style, exemplified by games like Ultima Underworld, and I wanted to push the limits of that sort of game further. But I could never get the project off the ground at Origin or, later, at Looking Glass. (I think it was lack of interest at Origin/EA and it was mostly a lack of money at LG!) But then John Romero and Ion Storm came along and said, 'Make the game of your dreams. No limits.' It took me about two nanoseconds to say 'Yes!'
Writers do have their stories made a part of games, many of which have been widely praised. The notion that a corporation being involved, doing some kind of vague, "the man" stuff, is going to prevent writers from getting their work out is baseless.SirCannonFodder said:But the difference between a painter and a game writer is that even if the painter never achieves popularity in their life-time, they still have completed works that can be appreciated as they are. Unless the game writer makes their own games, then any stories that are rejected will never see the light of day, since they won't have a game to be a part of, and without a game to go with it the story can't be enjoyed or appreciated in any meaningful way.
good grief, yes to RDRCaptain Epic said:Brutal Legend YAY! The story in that game is so damn perfectly constructed and brilliant. That, and it can be hilarious at times. My favourite ending is still RDR though. I've never hated a fictional character as much as I did at the end of that game.dunnace said:Ocarina of time has a deadly ending. Tear jerking indeed.
Also, Brutal Legend had a pretty amazing ending in my opinion, the twist was good and the acting superb.