What? There is only one function of dialogue within a story? Do you not find that idea somewhat limiting?Iron Lightning said:
The Story
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
Eh, this wasn't a great one for me because there were no disagreement. I would have wanted to see someone taking an alternate opinion from someone else to drive the discussion, this one was more just brief and saying "A is good. I agree. B is good. I agree."
Which will happen when people are being honest about games and the issue ends up being not especially contentious, but still.
As for game stories, I think an issue that people should touch on is the problem of dialogue trees making characters too vague...I mean, take a bioware game, because it gives you all these options of reacting as good or evil it forces the game to make the character blank enough that any of these character options still work in the game. It inevitably ends up that your character becomes at best a sort of background observer who just ends up watching other people react to things and make decisions and occasionally chiming in with hitting something or saying "Yes, that sounds great"
Which makes the whole story less interactive feeling because it feels like everyone else is leading you around and it is really really hard to care about or connect with my character when they're just a blank slate.
Counterexample: Infinite Space (EXCELLENT storytelling)
Sure, you don't control Yuri's reactions, but giving him dialogue allows him to actually express himself actually makes him into a fleshed out character that I can care about leading to victory.
Which will happen when people are being honest about games and the issue ends up being not especially contentious, but still.
As for game stories, I think an issue that people should touch on is the problem of dialogue trees making characters too vague...I mean, take a bioware game, because it gives you all these options of reacting as good or evil it forces the game to make the character blank enough that any of these character options still work in the game. It inevitably ends up that your character becomes at best a sort of background observer who just ends up watching other people react to things and make decisions and occasionally chiming in with hitting something or saying "Yes, that sounds great"
Which makes the whole story less interactive feeling because it feels like everyone else is leading you around and it is really really hard to care about or connect with my character when they're just a blank slate.
Counterexample: Infinite Space (EXCELLENT storytelling)
Sure, you don't control Yuri's reactions, but giving him dialogue allows him to actually express himself actually makes him into a fleshed out character that I can care about leading to victory.
Oh-ho, but you see, in 12 Angry Men, there was more to it than just standing and talking. The men moved around the room, , tested out theories, and above all, they actually showed some emotions in the movie. That, and the movie was WAY better-written than any of the Star Wars prequels. The problem with the Star Wars prequels is that they're just standing/sitting and talking to get expositionary dialogue out of the way so they can get to the CG-green screened action. Hell, even when they're talking there's a green screen, and it's through this that you can tell that these dialogue scenes are unnatural. You can just TELL that they're filling these talking scenes in an enclosed space, because there's little movement and all they do is say the lines they were supposed to say. There's nothing dynamic about any of it, and boring to boot. The review mainly uses the scene where Anakin reveals to Mace Windu that Palpatine is a Sith Lord as a primary example. This SHOULD be an exciting revelation, in which they learn that they're in trouble, but they just say they're lines and walk off screen at what can't even be called a brisk pace.Srdjan Tanaskovic said:
So yeah, even though his voice sounds weird, Plinkett makes SUCH good points throughout his reviews.
Oh thank goodness SOMEBODY has finally mentioned the story of GTA4. I honestly don't get why people were going around, giving it 10/10s, and saying the story was comparable to The Godfather when it just wasn't.
Sandbox games are probably the hardest games to write a story for because pacing goes completely out the window and it goes at the player's discretion. You need to keep the player's attention, so you give them a bunch of sidequests to do, but sometimes these sidequests don't fit with the whole story.
I'm pretty sure that Nico Belic was bipolar or schizophrenic or something. In one mission I had to keep a sniper watch over a "business meeting" with some mobsters and Nico eagerly accepted it and smiled, going "Alright, I'll do it." After that, I went around, did some stuff, went crazy with the police, and decided to go to another mission. I went to one of Nico's gay friends who wanted to take him on a relaxing boat ride, saying "It'll be fun!" to which Nico responded furiously with, "Fun? I'm trying to keep a low profile with mobsters and criminals going after me! I don't have time for your games!" and then he begrudgingly accepted, and somehow they ended up shooting some mobsters in the water.
Do you see the problem here? It's a huge inconsistency, and I can't really blame Rockstar for this (though I will) because it is pretty hard to keep a sandbox game with any form of consistency, let alone for the story. Red Dead Redemption was much better with this, but it still suffered from inconsistencies with John Marston (seriously, why did he need to go and help a revolution in Mexico? I had forgotten why I had come down there in the first place). Hopefully L.A. Noire will provide a better example of a story in a sandbox with consistent characterization, and consistent gameplay in general.
Sandbox games are probably the hardest games to write a story for because pacing goes completely out the window and it goes at the player's discretion. You need to keep the player's attention, so you give them a bunch of sidequests to do, but sometimes these sidequests don't fit with the whole story.
I'm pretty sure that Nico Belic was bipolar or schizophrenic or something. In one mission I had to keep a sniper watch over a "business meeting" with some mobsters and Nico eagerly accepted it and smiled, going "Alright, I'll do it." After that, I went around, did some stuff, went crazy with the police, and decided to go to another mission. I went to one of Nico's gay friends who wanted to take him on a relaxing boat ride, saying "It'll be fun!" to which Nico responded furiously with, "Fun? I'm trying to keep a low profile with mobsters and criminals going after me! I don't have time for your games!" and then he begrudgingly accepted, and somehow they ended up shooting some mobsters in the water.
Do you see the problem here? It's a huge inconsistency, and I can't really blame Rockstar for this (though I will) because it is pretty hard to keep a sandbox game with any form of consistency, let alone for the story. Red Dead Redemption was much better with this, but it still suffered from inconsistencies with John Marston (seriously, why did he need to go and help a revolution in Mexico? I had forgotten why I had come down there in the first place). Hopefully L.A. Noire will provide a better example of a story in a sandbox with consistent characterization, and consistent gameplay in general.
I love BioWare games but my replay of ME2 I'm doing right now (I just got it back from a friend) is really making it clear that the dialogue - while great for building a character - really does take you out of the game. It's really like ticknig a bunch of boxes. I'm doing an Renegade Femshep playthrough (in contrast to my first run of Paragon Manshep) and it's like Investigate > Option 1, Option 2, then move the analogue stick to the lower right to be a dick.
At the same time though, I want the best possible ending - I don't want to screw up so badly that the game becomes unwinnable or otherwise unpleasant. I don't care too much if I don't get a perfect run and keep everyone alive through the endgame, but I want to keep some people alive. So while I'm a dick to almost everyone and grab every Renegade QTE (while ignoring the Paragon ones) I'm still nice to most of my crew members. I bought Chakwas her brandy and toasted to Joker. I'm flirting like a mofo with Yeoman Chambers (even agreeing to call her Kelly), and I won't be rude to Joker even if I did refer to him as a cripple while the Normandy Mk.1 was going down in flames. I'm friendly but professional with Miranda (since I want to do her loyalty mission but I don't want to shag her) and I'll probably be nice to Garrus since I do want to shag him. I'm wondering if Femshep gets romance options with Jack? I don't really like Jack so if I lose her loyalty by taking advantage of her early on I'll probably do that then let her die.
These are all things I'm thinking about when plotting out my character. On playthrough 1 all I did wasp ick paragon dialogue options, flirt with everyone, turn down Jack then invite Miranda back to my room. Granted, I probably would have gone the Paragon route anyway because that felt more natural to me, but I'm glad I'm deliberately doing a Renegade run because the contrast is quite interesting.
Fallout 3/New Vegas feel a lot more unnatural to me. Maybe it's the voice acting. Maybe it's the plastic look and feel of the people who are talking to me. Maybe it's the fact that I'm scrolling down a list of options and most combat is via VATS so it feels like my involvement is basically just walking around and mashing the stimpack hotkey when I get into trouble.
Mass Effect and Fallout 3 have great stories and let me make choices that shape my experience, but i'm very aware that I'm making those choices.
The most engaging games for me are the ones where they're aren't really any choices, but the game flows in a natural way that doesn't feel linear. It is linear, but the game design makes me not care. This is why while Mass Effect 2 is a better game, I enjoy playing Modern Warfare 2 and Halo Reach a bunch more.
At the same time though, I want the best possible ending - I don't want to screw up so badly that the game becomes unwinnable or otherwise unpleasant. I don't care too much if I don't get a perfect run and keep everyone alive through the endgame, but I want to keep some people alive. So while I'm a dick to almost everyone and grab every Renegade QTE (while ignoring the Paragon ones) I'm still nice to most of my crew members. I bought Chakwas her brandy and toasted to Joker. I'm flirting like a mofo with Yeoman Chambers (even agreeing to call her Kelly), and I won't be rude to Joker even if I did refer to him as a cripple while the Normandy Mk.1 was going down in flames. I'm friendly but professional with Miranda (since I want to do her loyalty mission but I don't want to shag her) and I'll probably be nice to Garrus since I do want to shag him. I'm wondering if Femshep gets romance options with Jack? I don't really like Jack so if I lose her loyalty by taking advantage of her early on I'll probably do that then let her die.
These are all things I'm thinking about when plotting out my character. On playthrough 1 all I did wasp ick paragon dialogue options, flirt with everyone, turn down Jack then invite Miranda back to my room. Granted, I probably would have gone the Paragon route anyway because that felt more natural to me, but I'm glad I'm deliberately doing a Renegade run because the contrast is quite interesting.
Fallout 3/New Vegas feel a lot more unnatural to me. Maybe it's the voice acting. Maybe it's the plastic look and feel of the people who are talking to me. Maybe it's the fact that I'm scrolling down a list of options and most combat is via VATS so it feels like my involvement is basically just walking around and mashing the stimpack hotkey when I get into trouble.
Mass Effect and Fallout 3 have great stories and let me make choices that shape my experience, but i'm very aware that I'm making those choices.
The most engaging games for me are the ones where they're aren't really any choices, but the game flows in a natural way that doesn't feel linear. It is linear, but the game design makes me not care. This is why while Mass Effect 2 is a better game, I enjoy playing Modern Warfare 2 and Halo Reach a bunch more.
Did you just praise MW story while saying HL2's was inferior? Sir be thankful for free speech or i would be obliged to murder you.Yossarian1507 said:
On the more serious side, i read both your main points and it essentially boils down to "I'm not shooting stuff, something is wrong!" while it's perfectly fine for you to prefer that kind of gameplay, don't attempt to twist things to match your world view. MW story is mediocre (with the exception of the ending that provided a nice atmosphere, assuming we are talking about MW 1, MW 2 was just a steaming pile of shit story wise), while Half-Life story is much more engaging and with a much better atmosphere.
Simple check, try to separate by plot development the different areas you experienced in the game, this is a good way to tell a story impact. When you think MW you have a bunch of slightly different shooting locations that blend together in a horrible mess, while HF can easily (even by non-fans) be separated and have a clearly stronger impression. Boat section, beginning oppressive city 17, ravenholm, citadel, antlions, it is all much richer and distinct.
I think it's perfectly clear why Saint's Row 2 far surpasses GTA4. It doesn't take itself so damn seriously! It doesn't have "Cousin, it is your cousin! Want to go to a titty bar?" every FIVE GOD DAMN SECONDS!! >.<constantcompile said:
You could do whatever you want, HOWEVER you want. I also didn't see ANY linearity in SR2.. You had plenty of side events to do OR 3-4 gangs to take down.. And it didn't drag on. In GTA4, not only was it horrendously dull and lacked any colour whatsoever.. SR2 was vibrant, the city was YOURS to do what you want and Volition really didn't hold back any insanity.. Oh, and let's not forget the brilliance that is playing the single-player storyline in co-op.
---------------
Anyway, I quite like this new segment of the site. I also hope it has a revolving cast of contributors, rather than just Yahtzee, Bob & James. Seeing Graham & Shamus contribute is great!
As for THIS particular article, I am in full agreement with Graham. I believe I've stated before my incredible distaste for the moral choice system in Western RPGs.. I can't stand Mass Effect or Dragon Age, gameplay OR story progression. I tolerate Fable III, but under immense suffering. I don't exactly mind a few personal decisions here and there, but when it drastically affects the story and forces me to choose between "right or wrong", with a major downside being that some quests have to be avoided or NPC's could just drop dead or hate you, etc.. It really annoys me. Prime example in Fable III's mercenary camp. The Dweller Camp's leader, Sabine, gives the forced quest to clear out the mercenary camp and kill the leader, Saker. You infiltrate their base and end up fighting the big man himself. After "defeating" him, you have two choices. The "good" option, sparing his life.. And the "bad" option, killing the vile bastard.
Now, let's go back a step. "The FORCED quest to clear out the mercenary camp and KILL THE LEADER, Saker." That's the outline of the quest Sabine gives you. Naturally, I choose to kill Saker.. I return to Sabine, heralded as their lord and savior and promise to help them as King. It is HOURS LATER IN THE GAME when I decide to read through some of the quests in the BradyGames Fable III guide and find out that SAKER CAN BECOME A "LOYAL FOLLOWER" on the Road to Rule. WHAT. THE. FUCK. The quest clearly stated to "KILL HIM, HE IS A VILE PIG".. Yet he counts as a follower if spared? What about Sabine's request? None of that makes ANY sense..
See, it's no wonder I choose to play more Japanese RPGs lately, even resorting to going back to my precious Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy X!
Yeah. I'm going back and playing games that are ten to twelve years old, rather than playing most of the games around today. Granted, Final Fantasy games have their flaws and are by no means perfect (except for maybe IX, I honestly can't fault a game so brilliant) and yes, I definitely believe certain traits in JRPGs need a desperate change, but they are no better or worse than any Western RPG. They all have strengths. They all have weaknesses. But it says a lot about games of today when I'm resorting to playing decade old games instead..
Boy am I glad these guy aren't in charge of gaming industry. I love cutscenes and I think free roaming games can have good stories. GTA, Assassin's Creed and MAFIA come to mind. Seriously, they didn't mention Mafia? The characters, the story progression and character development, the pacing slowly building up to a grand finale? And they didn't even mention it?!
Also, what half-life 2 did isn't quite unique. Bioshock did it too and it did it better in my opinion. I was more immersed in Bioshock then I ever was in Half Life 2 (as much as I love HL2).
And why hate the choices? If you don't like choices don't play RPG's. Simple as that. It seems they have forgotten some of the basic things about certain gaming genres. I loved Dragon Age Origins dialogues that lasted for hours. I wanted to know more about Ferelden and my companions. That kind of dialogue immerses you into the world of the game. And the more I know about it the more real it feels.
Also, what half-life 2 did isn't quite unique. Bioshock did it too and it did it better in my opinion. I was more immersed in Bioshock then I ever was in Half Life 2 (as much as I love HL2).
And why hate the choices? If you don't like choices don't play RPG's. Simple as that. It seems they have forgotten some of the basic things about certain gaming genres. I loved Dragon Age Origins dialogues that lasted for hours. I wanted to know more about Ferelden and my companions. That kind of dialogue immerses you into the world of the game. And the more I know about it the more real it feels.
Wait, what? Alpha Protocol is a leading candidate for the exact opposite: your choices matter more in that game than in most others. (This is also true for Heavy Rain, as another commenter pointed out; I think it's also true for the Witcher, although I don't have enough personal experience with that yet.) Certainly your choices in AP matter much more than in the Mass Effect games, which are themselves a rung or two above most other games. (Games outside the RPG genre tend not to have choices matter to the story in the slightest.)Graham Stark said:
What's done particularly well in Alpha Protocol and Heavy Rain is the integration of the choice -- the game will continue on without interruption; the choices aren't "pass" or "fail" or even "good" or "bad", they just alter the outcomes of later events in appropriate ways.
Oh. Awesome. Well, we must send Mike Lunsford cookies, then.MattAn24 said:
...and really, anytime Yahtzee shows up in anything not Zero Punctuation, he really should show up as this.
...the real-life, slow-talking Ben Croshaw should be kept as far away from the foul-mouthed verbal diarrhea-spewing Zero Punctuation Ben Croshaw. Thus, he should be given a cartoon avatar of himself.
That's what I think, anyway. Zero Punctuation and Extra Punctuation showcase two very different sides of Yahtzee, and this column should reflect this, too.
You got it all wrong.icaritos said:
First of all - I'm not the 'shooting things is important, the plot is irrelevant' guy. I love the good story in games, and my top 3 games of all time reflect that (Heavy Rain, KotOR II, Planescape Torment). But if the plot is going to work, it must be executed well.
I never said anything abut the quality of the plot. MW story, although quite nice, is still only a political fiction, that would be suitable for a B class movie at best. HL2 story is really good though. But this is story, and I'm talking about storyTELLING. And this is the point where MW shines, while HL2 fails.
In MW, even though there are things that will just happen, and you don't have any control over it, it still feels like you are doing everything you can, and that's just the case of 'shit happens, you did your best, but sometimes it just ends like that' (you crawling on the ground after the nuke went off in MW, or even Roach's last mission in MW2). In HL2 there's also stuff that will happen regardless of your actions, that's normal for EVERY video-game, but in HL2, this is the case of holding you back, because it MUST HAPPEN for the sake of the plot. Gordon could've easily prevent the sad ending of Ep2, if your control over character would be full. You don't have it though, you see that it's just an illusion, and that's why it's frustrating. MW did a damn good job at not breaking that illusion, and that's why Infinity Ward did it better.
Also, don't even try to tell me, that HL2 has a good pace. Just look at the beginning. You're in Orwellian City 17, you're in trouble, but Alyx helps you. So far so good. Then you go to Eli's lab, where you listen, and listen, and listen. Okay, exposition. A little boring, but I can cope with that. And then 'OMIGOD Gordon, the teleportation got fucked up, you need to fight your way through Combine to actually start the plot for real.' Gah, okay. I understand. It was the plot device to get a look at Breen and letting him know that Gordon is in town, although I can think of multiple ways to make that happen better. Nevermind, let's move on. After FINALLY reaching your destination point, it seems like the plot is finally going to sta- oh no wait, the rubble separated us, you need to go through the scary Ravenholm to start it for real. And at this point I was like 'GOD DAMN! THIS SUCKS!' Again, I know it was the introduction of the priest, but come on, there are better ways to do this! I'm not an enemy of a slow pace in games, Heavy Rain, and to lesser extent, KotOR II did that as well, but in those cases it was meaningful (establishing Ethan as a main character and showing his personal tragedy before the main game starts, and then Jayden and Shelby showing both their strong and weak sides [unfortunately, proper Madison introduction got cut, so she felt a little bit bland] and quite slow but interesting mystery about the lifeless mining station + introduction of Sion, Krea and Atton as the characters, respectively). In this case, it felt like Valve were trolls saying 'u can't has the plot u want. U MAD?' And indeed, I was mad. Unfortunately, even though the plot starts later, some of the bad parts remain like a lot of monologues of exposition that could be done in a more interesting way (like through the newspapers. Or maybe through audio-logs Bioshock style, as it was really cool).
On a side note - you must be joking about the boat sections. Other examples - fine. I didn't like Ravenholm, but I get that it could be interesting and/or scary for someone else. Other locations were interesting and making you feel connected with the world, I agree. But the boat sections? Bland, annoying levels with almost zero connections to the plot and the world? Seriously?
I have an on again off again relationship with cut scenes. If they're good, I don't mind them at all. If they're crap, well... Devil May Cry 3 was actually one of my favorite uses of cut scenes, though it certainly isn't innocent of some crappy cut scenes. Two aspects I enjoyed in the cut scenes is that 1) There are some actions that Dante performs that he can actually do in game and 2) The over the top acting and action helped to create an unmistakable style.
The first point is not in agreement with Mr. Croshaw's remarks about having cut scenes not show actions that the player can do in game. I am more often annoyed that cut scenes show scenarios that I wish I were playing instead of the game. Starcraft 2 is the most recent violator. I was dying to play their in-game engine cut scenes, especially the parts that occur late in the single player campaign. Instead, I was stuck in omnipotent mode moving toys around a fake battlefield. The pre-Subsistance MGS games were another case. I hated how the cut scenes would show really cool stuff, but I was stuck in a goofy camera angle that limited my ability to feel like I could do anything nearly as fantastic in the game world.
The second point is more of a specific case of "good" cut scenes in Devil May Cry 3. There were definitely some throw away cinematics squeezed in between levels, but other cut scenes were outstanding in their production. I won't argue that this does or doesn't ruin "immersion", as I believe that it is totally a matter of opinion.
Yahtzee's Red Letter Media reference is absolutely spot on in terms of analogy. I really wish I could get into Dragon Age 2, but I just can't.
The first point is not in agreement with Mr. Croshaw's remarks about having cut scenes not show actions that the player can do in game. I am more often annoyed that cut scenes show scenarios that I wish I were playing instead of the game. Starcraft 2 is the most recent violator. I was dying to play their in-game engine cut scenes, especially the parts that occur late in the single player campaign. Instead, I was stuck in omnipotent mode moving toys around a fake battlefield. The pre-Subsistance MGS games were another case. I hated how the cut scenes would show really cool stuff, but I was stuck in a goofy camera angle that limited my ability to feel like I could do anything nearly as fantastic in the game world.
The second point is more of a specific case of "good" cut scenes in Devil May Cry 3. There were definitely some throw away cinematics squeezed in between levels, but other cut scenes were outstanding in their production. I won't argue that this does or doesn't ruin "immersion", as I believe that it is totally a matter of opinion.
Yahtzee's Red Letter Media reference is absolutely spot on in terms of analogy. I really wish I could get into Dragon Age 2, but I just can't.
I can't help but feel like there was much less focus on Story in gaming, and much of talk on "Why Story is Oil & The rest of the game is Water". That aside, pretty much agree with what they said.
It isn't a bad thing to have gameplay and story-line seperated between cutscenes and gameplay, but it does ruin what COULD BE a very good/well-thought out story. If you really think about it, a lot of games out there are either turning the story or gameplay into "filler".
Think of TV shows or anime, some of them are filled with 23 minutes of no-progress, then the random 4 minutes of juicy delicious story-progressing sauce. Some have full episodes of "filler". You've probably seen this too many times in action-heavy games (or others) and not even noticed. God of War II & III is all "Gameplay is happy fun killy time" while the story is kind of filler to more Kill Kill Stab Stab. This doesn't make the game bad, but it makes the story even lesser than it is. At the same time, if the story wasn't there at all, you'd just have another button-mashing senseless killer. All the same.
On the other hand, God of War (If you really want to seperate it, David Jaffe's God of War), did the same formula, but the storyline was captivating, and could somehow make you have an emotional connection with Kratos. Let me remind you that this is the same guy who was considered the most badass character of its year when the game came out. Even killers have tragedies?
One thing that did bother me about Assassin's Creed. Yes, there were story-progressing scenes that had you walking, talking, and doing various things, but there were still scenes where you were on the railroad tracks...what happened? I can't count how many times I was out IN PUBLIC AREAS talking two someone when the guards would pass-by right behind me. Wow, I guess I was invisible...
Heavy Rain is such a unique case to bring up that it has to be on Not-A-Planet Pluto. It isn't going by formula, it isn't all cutscene, yet it is all cutscene. It makes the story THE gameplay, and the actions your cause & effect. Before the game even came out, everybody had question marks hovering over their heads over it. L.A. Noire is another one of those titles. High Hopes?
As for where PURE STORY has gone (ha, on topic), it has progressed but only as much as technology has grown. Still in the age where Nintendo ruled the gaming world (as gaming, NOT sales numbers), and they were still using franchise characters for pure gameplay fun with other various furries. Everybody was still following behind this method. Now we have better technology, can see human expressions like a widescreen close-up in the movies. If anything we are only recently using technology make characters more of "The Face" of the game, than just the object we use to shoot things.
Story will become more of the forefront as we get more successful games to use it better. We can still count notable games on our hands with amazing story:gameplay ratio, we have to get more.
It isn't a bad thing to have gameplay and story-line seperated between cutscenes and gameplay, but it does ruin what COULD BE a very good/well-thought out story. If you really think about it, a lot of games out there are either turning the story or gameplay into "filler".
Think of TV shows or anime, some of them are filled with 23 minutes of no-progress, then the random 4 minutes of juicy delicious story-progressing sauce. Some have full episodes of "filler". You've probably seen this too many times in action-heavy games (or others) and not even noticed. God of War II & III is all "Gameplay is happy fun killy time" while the story is kind of filler to more Kill Kill Stab Stab. This doesn't make the game bad, but it makes the story even lesser than it is. At the same time, if the story wasn't there at all, you'd just have another button-mashing senseless killer. All the same.
On the other hand, God of War (If you really want to seperate it, David Jaffe's God of War), did the same formula, but the storyline was captivating, and could somehow make you have an emotional connection with Kratos. Let me remind you that this is the same guy who was considered the most badass character of its year when the game came out. Even killers have tragedies?
One thing that did bother me about Assassin's Creed. Yes, there were story-progressing scenes that had you walking, talking, and doing various things, but there were still scenes where you were on the railroad tracks...what happened? I can't count how many times I was out IN PUBLIC AREAS talking two someone when the guards would pass-by right behind me. Wow, I guess I was invisible...
Heavy Rain is such a unique case to bring up that it has to be on Not-A-Planet Pluto. It isn't going by formula, it isn't all cutscene, yet it is all cutscene. It makes the story THE gameplay, and the actions your cause & effect. Before the game even came out, everybody had question marks hovering over their heads over it. L.A. Noire is another one of those titles. High Hopes?
As for where PURE STORY has gone (ha, on topic), it has progressed but only as much as technology has grown. Still in the age where Nintendo ruled the gaming world (as gaming, NOT sales numbers), and they were still using franchise characters for pure gameplay fun with other various furries. Everybody was still following behind this method. Now we have better technology, can see human expressions like a widescreen close-up in the movies. If anything we are only recently using technology make characters more of "The Face" of the game, than just the object we use to shoot things.
Story will become more of the forefront as we get more successful games to use it better. We can still count notable games on our hands with amazing story:gameplay ratio, we have to get more.
I hole hardheartedly agree with the last comment; with technology as good as it is now, game makers are not allowed to get away with strait forward text bubble dialog seams, and expect the player to immagen how thing are being said, like in a book. But with game makers able to show all parts of the story, they are also able to over tell the games, with JRPG's being the worst. XenoSaga, I got a good 60 hours of gameplay in my first play through, but when I played it agen (skipping most of the cutseens) I only got around 20 hours of game-play. or the most resent FFXIII, were I didn't feel like I was actually playing the game until the last disk, and by then I had stopped caring about the characters.
I think that in most games cutseens are unavoidable, as when your in a situation were you cant do anything anyways, but same games try to get around that with interactive cutseens (PRESS "B" OR YOU DIE!!!) Half-Life 2 is just the kind of game that is useing the set up from the first game made in a time were FPS didn't have much in the way of cutseens, and the main characters did not talk much, or ar all, so they were abule to get away with a mute Gordon Freeman, thus not needing a cutseen other then at the start and end of the game.
But with how good the tech is now a days, I gess the name of the game for story's is "Tell less, show more"
I think that in most games cutseens are unavoidable, as when your in a situation were you cant do anything anyways, but same games try to get around that with interactive cutseens (PRESS "B" OR YOU DIE!!!) Half-Life 2 is just the kind of game that is useing the set up from the first game made in a time were FPS didn't have much in the way of cutseens, and the main characters did not talk much, or ar all, so they were abule to get away with a mute Gordon Freeman, thus not needing a cutseen other then at the start and end of the game.
But with how good the tech is now a days, I gess the name of the game for story's is "Tell less, show more"
The problem is that they don't consider the limitations we still have now. Maybe not technologically, but in terms of resources.
It's a little more difficult than it sounds to program the character doing something else while they're carrying on a conversation. And even if they are doing something else, too much business makes the scene about that, not about the conversation.
For example, take Mass Effect. Let's say you're having a conversation with Garrus as he's fidling with his rifle. If that went on, the scene would become about the rifle, and you'd completely lose track of the conversation.
It's actually a part of the film industry. Actors who get too busy with a prop are not good actors. Unless it's about the prop.
And not every conversation can be made walking down a hallway, since the timing with which you respond may not match the time it takes to travel said hallway. So those conventions don't necessarily work in the favor of the narrative.
So the way Bioware has it now, I'd say, is as good as we can get. And yes, they could give you a time limit on your responses. But do you honestly want a time limit on your responses in Mass Effect? They do decide some crucial things, so they allow you to consider the consequences.
The problem I have with discussions about video game storylins is that everyone who has a problem with conventional cinematics thinks they have the ultimate answer for the way storytelling in games should be done. Well, frankly, I don't consider "always letting you have control" or silent hero games to be the best solution. Like Half-Life... I mean, it's one possible convention for storytelling. But personally, I don't like it, and have no interest in the game. I like main characters with personality, and are vocal about it. Not ALL games have to be that way, but last I checked, I saw no problem with games like Uncharted, and its cutscenes.
Everyone has their preference, and that's why there is no "solution" for game storytelling. Take Metal Gear Solid, for example. MGS is known to have some long ass cutscenes. But the first MGS game has time and again been acclaimed to be one of the best the PS1 had to offer. And heck, the other MGS games did too, for their respective platforms. What does that mean? It means that all games should have cinematics as long as Metal Gear Solid.... I'm kidding. No, it doesn't, but I bet that kind of a statement could really infuriate some people. My point is, long drawn out cutscenes are a key part of what Metal Gear Solid is. So let MGS be MGS. Some people don't like it, they don't have to play it.
I didn't like the narrative style of Bioshock. I didn't complain about it, I just moved on to a different game. It's that simple.
There's nothing wrong with how the narrative is told in Fallout, or Mass Effect, or Metal Gear Solid, or Heavy Rain, or Bioshock. They're just very different styles of narratives. There are plenty of people out there for each, so I don't see why someone needs to dictate, "Video Game storytelling should be like this."
It's a little more difficult than it sounds to program the character doing something else while they're carrying on a conversation. And even if they are doing something else, too much business makes the scene about that, not about the conversation.
For example, take Mass Effect. Let's say you're having a conversation with Garrus as he's fidling with his rifle. If that went on, the scene would become about the rifle, and you'd completely lose track of the conversation.
It's actually a part of the film industry. Actors who get too busy with a prop are not good actors. Unless it's about the prop.
And not every conversation can be made walking down a hallway, since the timing with which you respond may not match the time it takes to travel said hallway. So those conventions don't necessarily work in the favor of the narrative.
So the way Bioware has it now, I'd say, is as good as we can get. And yes, they could give you a time limit on your responses. But do you honestly want a time limit on your responses in Mass Effect? They do decide some crucial things, so they allow you to consider the consequences.
The problem I have with discussions about video game storylins is that everyone who has a problem with conventional cinematics thinks they have the ultimate answer for the way storytelling in games should be done. Well, frankly, I don't consider "always letting you have control" or silent hero games to be the best solution. Like Half-Life... I mean, it's one possible convention for storytelling. But personally, I don't like it, and have no interest in the game. I like main characters with personality, and are vocal about it. Not ALL games have to be that way, but last I checked, I saw no problem with games like Uncharted, and its cutscenes.
Everyone has their preference, and that's why there is no "solution" for game storytelling. Take Metal Gear Solid, for example. MGS is known to have some long ass cutscenes. But the first MGS game has time and again been acclaimed to be one of the best the PS1 had to offer. And heck, the other MGS games did too, for their respective platforms. What does that mean? It means that all games should have cinematics as long as Metal Gear Solid.... I'm kidding. No, it doesn't, but I bet that kind of a statement could really infuriate some people. My point is, long drawn out cutscenes are a key part of what Metal Gear Solid is. So let MGS be MGS. Some people don't like it, they don't have to play it.
I didn't like the narrative style of Bioshock. I didn't complain about it, I just moved on to a different game. It's that simple.
There's nothing wrong with how the narrative is told in Fallout, or Mass Effect, or Metal Gear Solid, or Heavy Rain, or Bioshock. They're just very different styles of narratives. There are plenty of people out there for each, so I don't see why someone needs to dictate, "Video Game storytelling should be like this."
- and have James, Shamus and Yahtzee as the most regular contributors, with the others coming in and out to talk about this stuff as well.
So Yahtzee is pro Skyrim apparently, since he described what Skryim says its going to try to do. That is to say, real time conversations.
Maybe we should make developers play Dungeons and Dragons as a DM. I now realize being a Dungeon Master is the same as a developer, but I can modify and change in real time, since its personal. Constantly I try to give my players an amazing story, but making them involved. Ofcourse, there are no cutscenes, so the players can just attack my monologue giving villian anytime.
Maybe we should make developers play Dungeons and Dragons as a DM. I now realize being a Dungeon Master is the same as a developer, but I can modify and change in real time, since its personal. Constantly I try to give my players an amazing story, but making them involved. Ofcourse, there are no cutscenes, so the players can just attack my monologue giving villian anytime.