Poll: Sweeping Storyline VS Personal Conflicts and Complex Characterization and Development?

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Sweeping storyline is a broad term. It can include personal conflict. I don't see a reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Aren't all the player characteres in those games either unsympathetic fuckoffs or mute?

No idea where you are going with this...
Anyway, the mute guys are your porthole into the game world and not actual characters, and the "unsympathetic fuckoffs" are characters that fit the setting... more or less.

But it is always about the full cast, the player is just a small part in the great scheme of things.

 

[likalaruku]

I like variety, that way it's less like playing more of the same.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

I generally find it a lot easier to care about a plot when I have a character to care about, and with most of the sweeping epic stories, the characterisation comes down to "YOU ARE HERO GUY, GO SAVE WORLD".

(Which I still find preferable to Saber. But only just.)

 

[Freechoice]

Aren't all the player characteres in those games either unsympathetic fuckoffs or mute?

No idea where you are going with this...
Anyway, the mute guys are your porthole into the game world and not actual characters, and the "unsympathetic fuckoffs" are characters that fit the setting... more or less.

But it is always about the full cast, the player is just a small part in the great scheme of things.

If you exclude the player character from the importance of the story or make them unlikable pricks, that's a big gaping whole in the personal conflict thing. As for Valve and hiding beneath the covers with mute protagonists:
A, I've read hearsay that they don't intend to make single player games anymore and,
2. Since Half-Life 2, the mute protagonist trope always gets a moment of "what a good dog you are" meta-humor/parody. What is the game really saying when it leads you around by the nose and makes you do something you didn't really want to do?

Really, to say Gordon Freeman is "not an actual character" is a load of horseshit. People treat him like he's the second coming of Christ and, this is the big thing, he has a face. That whole thing I just talked about applies well to Bioshock because the game treats you like a pawn, going so far as to not give you a clear view of the protagonist's face.

 

[lacktheknack]

I like psychological stuff, so I'd go with personal conflicts and complex characters. However, I'd hate it if sweeping storylines died. I like strategy games, most of which are the definition of sweeping.

 

[lacktheknack]

Why not both?

You can have both!

A sweeping storyline that revolves around "Saving the World" while having personal conflicts and character development.

Damn hard to pull off, but if it is ever done...

usually one has to get focussed on at the expense of the other.

Example

Most christopher nolan films are plot driven, sacrificing character time to make a compelling narrative.

On the flip side you have joss whedon who's works are character driven, and to allow this they have basic storyline and focus heavily on character interactions and growth.

And simply put since you only have a set amount of time to build up these aspects picking one over the other makes it more memorable than trying to settle for both (most of the time).

(there is also set piece driven stuff, but that usually doesn't reach the greatness of the other two, where the structure is just rushing between separate big things happening with very little thought given to plot or characters, usually entertaining in a popcorn fluff kind of way but often forgettable)

To be fair, games are typically much longer than a movie, and thus would have time to do both.

The main problem is mixing development/narrative with actual gameplay in a way that doesn't tick everybody off.

 

[Lilani]

whatever the developers intended, and whatever works

I dont think you need doomsday to have high stakes, you just need to care about what goes on

What I'm interested in is why people might find one preferable and more engaging and the other.

I think people might have their personal preferences, but I don't think I've met anyone who is dead set against one or the other, regardless of the quality or circumstances. The way I see it, it less to do with those specific aspects, and more to do with how well they were pulled off. Both can work and be successful and popular, there's no questioning that. Though they do tend to require some sort of intersection to work--I doubt Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings would be as successful as they are if the characters and their personal struggles hadn't been as engaging as the major events. And similarly, I doubt the characters of WallE and Up would have been able to carry a full movie without the outside events which kept the plot and the characters moving forward.

 

[Weaver]

Star Ocean: The Last Hope is a great example of this: The game's story had potential, but the obnoxiousness of the cast consistently ruined its attempts at storytelling.

Oh god, someone else who had the misfortune of playing that god awful game.
The combat was fun and challenging but I did not like a single character.

 

[lacktheknack]

Why not both?

You can have both!

A sweeping storyline that revolves around "Saving the World" while having personal conflicts and character development.

Damn hard to pull off, but if it is ever done...

usually one has to get focussed on at the expense of the other.

Example

Most christopher nolan films are plot driven, sacrificing character time to make a compelling narrative.

On the flip side you have joss whedon who's works are character driven, and to allow this they have basic storyline and focus heavily on character interactions and growth.

And simply put since you only have a set amount of time to build up these aspects picking one over the other makes it more memorable than trying to settle for both (most of the time).

(there is also set piece driven stuff, but that usually doesn't reach the greatness of the other two, where the structure is just rushing between separate big things happening with very little thought given to plot or characters, usually entertaining in a popcorn fluff kind of way but often forgettable)

To be fair, games are typically much longer than a movie, and thus would have time to do both.

The main problem is mixing development/narrative with actual gameplay in a way that doesn't tick everybody off.

While they have the physical time its still got to be balanced between character moments and plot pacing.

Off the top of my head i can't think of a game which does both well, some of the metal gears come close.

Indigo Prophecy also almost did it, if it hadn't suddenly snuffed ALL THE LSD at the end.

One could argue that Starcraft (the original) came closest.

 

[Freechoice]

Off the top of my head i can't think of a game which does both well, some of the metal gears come close.

You're plausibly right, but I am also reminded of how someone said that MGS4's ending answered questions he didn't even ask. There's also the Zero Punctuation review.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

thats a tough one, but probably characters over big story arc

(although i do enjoy bioware's kotor with does both pretty well i think, that's one of the very few games where i love finishing the ending over and over and over)

 

[fireaura08]

Tough one, but I can forgive a shitty story/generic setting if the characters are multifaceted and unique.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I prefer smaller scale and personal storylines and pretty much always have. I don't feel like I need to save the world from some overarching evil. I wish I'd stop being forced into doing so.

 

[Ryotknife]

Tough one, but I can forgive a shitty story/generic setting if the characters are multifaceted and unique.

pretty much this.

 

[OctoH]

I prefer to focus on the development of the characters and their inner conflicts. Sweeping plot can help in this, but it is not necessary.

 

[Freechoice]

Off the top of my head i can't think of a game which does both well, some of the metal gears come close.

You're plausibly right, but I am also reminded of how someone said that MGS4's ending answered questions he didn't even ask. There's also the Zero Punctuation review.

thats why i said some of. 1 + 3 specifically balanced it well. In my humble opinion at least.

I'll give you those. The series as the whole is pants on head retarded, though.