Totally with you guys on this one. Not only was the story of the HL universe great, but the way it was told was excellent as well. Interesting discussion guys!
The Story
- Thread starter Extra Consideration
- Start date
I vote for combining kill-watch into Kwatch. That way when we get a game with too many cut scenes we can say that the game needs to be shot wight in the Kwatch.constantcompile said:
The vast majority of the dialogue options in that game affect whether you talk like a douche, a likeable douche, or a clever douche, but you usually end up saying basically the same thing.Miral said:
I love cutscenes too! Just because I make fun of them doesn't mean I hate themImprovizoR said:
But seriously, what I said was sandbox gameplay opposes a good story. You may like the story in GTA IV (I thought it was very 1-dimensional myself, but whatever), but nothing you do in gameplay really affects it. All the cutscenes together might make an interesting movie about an immigrant rising the crime ranks, but as a story-telling medium sandbox games are useless because there's too much choice for the gamer.
Someone else in the thread mentioned an instance where in the plot Nico is trying to keep a low-profile, but in the game he's running over pedestrian and blowing up helicopters. This is an example of the gameplay and story being at odds.
A sandbox game must be open and non-linear. Stories aren't, so forcing a non-linear experience around a linear narrative will always feel contrived.
Can't say as I much care for you either, friend.Neogeta said:
I think you missed the part where I said I rarely get to play games. And I buy all my own games too, but thanks for making assumptions.
As to a real response, not everyone does like getting locked into a given choice, but regardless, I never said it was bad, just something I tend to bent out of shape about.
All I said was that I liked how Alpha Protocol did it, not that all games should. Alpha Protocol had issues, for sure, but getting my choice of how the character responds from a "tone of voice" aspect is a neat idea. I like it more than "I WILL DO THE GOOD THING" or "I WILL DO THE BAD THING", and it helps the designer move the story forward in one direction, while still giving the player input.
Because the question was about storytelling in games, not what kind of dialogue trees are better.
I really have to disagree with Graham. Having different dialog choices have different options in the story is great. It means that me and my friends wont have the exact same play though, and it also means that the complete game map will be delayed a bit longer online than in other more linear games.
Bottom line, if your going to include a story, dynamic elements based on how characters interact is a GOOD thing. I hope the games that have started this never stop.
This is the type of thing that extra credits has been pointing towards in a lot of there episodes. Remember the one part in ME2 were James sat pondering whether to mind wipe, or kill the geth? Its good when games have to make us think for a change and not just button mash though pointless dialog trees with no meaning. (Why put them in in the first place?)
Bottom line, if your going to include a story, dynamic elements based on how characters interact is a GOOD thing. I hope the games that have started this never stop.
This is the type of thing that extra credits has been pointing towards in a lot of there episodes. Remember the one part in ME2 were James sat pondering whether to mind wipe, or kill the geth? Its good when games have to make us think for a change and not just button mash though pointless dialog trees with no meaning. (Why put them in in the first place?)
Could a game with no cutscenes, such as an fps in which you run from fight to fight while hearing the dialouge being spoken from your squad be successful?
What not to do
Although I loved how Splinter Cell had you
in co-op. Besides the confusing plot it was a pretty good story.
Metal gear solid 4 had an epic ending but most of it was just wut? I was really young when I played that game though... I wish the story had made the game-play more tense and immerse me though.
kill your own teammate
Metal gear solid 4 had an epic ending but most of it was just
wut? I was really young when I played that game though... I wish the story had made the game-play more tense and immerse me though.
That one bit in SC Conviction when Fisher sees the words on the walls to show his emotions, and then go super marksman badass was the best moment of storytelling because you're now playing in Sam's crazy anger mode. And the ending where you're walking as Grimsdottir drags you to the President's office where Reed is. So effective.Littlee300 said:What not to do
Although I loved howS plinter Cell had you
in co-op. I think I liked co-op's campaign more which is ironic because it had 10 times less work.kill your own teammate
Metal gear solid 4 had an epic ending but most of it was just
The Ending:
No, you misunderstand me, I said that is the only point of dialogue options. If the dialogue options have no effect on the story then there's no point in having dialogue options at all.GiantRaven said:
I have no problem with linear storytelling, but if a game goes to the trouble of including dialogue options then they'd better have a point.
As this exchange shows, I think another problem with games in terms of storytelling is there often appears to be a bit of a dischord between Narrative and Worldbuilding and I think Yossarian had it right when he said MW2 told a better story. For a games stroy to do well, it must strike a balance between the two and sadly a lot of games don't.Yossarian1507 said:
Great Worldbuilding, Poor Narrative: Half Life 2, Oblivion. Both of these games build up a great world with a fantastic backstory through different methods. HL2 does it by showing you the aftermath of the attack and through peoples casaul conversations and Oblivion by have mountains of books and documents you could hunt down and read. Sadly, the narrative in both is lacking. In HL2 its poorly paced (Boat section stands out here) and you as Gordon Freeman has no real motivation to do anything other then "Someone told me too". Oblivion has the same problem most sandbox games have in that the main narrative gets lost in amongst all the background noise of additional plots and quests.
Great Narrative, Poor Worldbuilding: Modern Warfare, Final Fantasy VIII. Both of these games have a strong, well paced narrative with consistent motivations for the player characters. MW does mainly does this by keeping you within the military structure (so railroading you a bit) while giving you enough information at the beginning of each mission so you know why you have to do what you're told to do. However, outside of the current mission, the rest of the story and background information goes largly untold. In FFVIII, you again have consistant and changing motivations (Following orders -> saving a loved one -> saving the world) and a well paced narrative that keeps upping the ante while providing breathers from the action. Sadly, a lot of the backstory and world history is never shown or poorly explained giving you little context for what you're doing.
Great Narrative, Great Worldbuiling: Bioshock, Final Fantasy XIII (Hear me out). Both of htese games manage to strike a balance by having a good narrative while also building up the world around you. In Bioshock, there is successful worldbuilding and backstory through showing the ruins of what was and combining it with the audio diaries to help give it all context. Inside of this it has a good narrative through a believable motivation alongside good pacing and well rounded characters. In Final Fantasy XIII, the narrative weaves between different characters and locations constantly helping to keep things fresh and interesting while combining it with a slight deconstruction of the standard Hero's Journey. It builds up the world using exposition, visual clues and through a comprehensive (though slightly unecessary) encyclopedia.
While each person has a preference in games (personally I prefer a strong narrative over freedom) game makers need to work on getting the balance better overall.
It sucks that that guy was so offensive to you, but you have to understand that not many people are going to agree with you (and have already said so). Know that I, for one, understand your dilemma, though I don't agree with your opinion itself.Graham_LRR said:
That being said.... you get to play video games for a living (in some capacity), a lifestyle any of us would kill to have. Pardon us for not agreeing to the perceived unfairness of your situation, man.
Lastly and OT: I will say that, if a game offers choices that can potentially lock out parts of the game: It should be perfectly, crystal clear about these outcomes. It might not always be "realistic" that way, (since we can't always know the outcomes of our choices from the get go irl) it is for the best, I believe.
Bethesda games are usually not very good at doing this; though Bioware is, in my experience. Can't say about Alpha Protocol as I never played it.
Definitely agree with this. That was the BEST use of gameplay to portray emotion that I have ever seen, pushing the Batman Arkham Asylum "Trip down Crime Alley sequence" into a close second.Moeez said:
Strange, I found MGS4 to be much more immersive and replayable than HL2. Cutscenes make sense when an unpreventable plot element is actually taking place in games with no cutscenes you struggle through a level as the plot is told around you. You defeat the mighty dragon and rescue the princess, only to have a glass box dropped on you whilst the evil sorceror drops down gloats at you and kills the princess. Of course once the princess is dead and the sorceror gone the box falls apart like wet cereal. It makes the main character look retarded and the game designer look unimaginative.
The example that most sticks in my mind is from fallout 3. I have no idea how to make spoiler tags, I'll attempt them though
Lastly cutscenes are mostly skippable whereas there's not usually much you can do to skip playing during a speech.
The example that most sticks in my mind is from fallout 3. I have no idea how to make spoiler tags, I'll attempt them though
You have rescued your father from the evil Braun, everything is being happy and your going to get the water plant running, he makes you fix crap and the Enclave shows up. You manage to take out several goons in power armour before reaching James in the filtration room. Where he is cornered by Colonel Autumn and his guards, they convince him to activate the pump. In a moment of sacrifice he forces the pump station to overload filling the place with radiation, he only does this after conveniently locking the chamber for just long enough for him and Autumn to die. If that was a cutscene I'd be fine with it, it's out of my hands, but you're in full control throughout the whole thing.
In the end you just feel like it was pointless to be given control if you can't do anything with it, your dad sacrifices himself because of two enclave troops and a guy in a radiation suit, Autumn even fakes dying of radiation poisoning for no apparent reason.
In the end you just feel like it was pointless to be given control if you can't do anything with it, your dad sacrifices himself because of two enclave troops and a guy in a radiation suit, Autumn even fakes dying of radiation poisoning for no apparent reason.
Lastly cutscenes are mostly skippable whereas there's not usually much you can do to skip playing during a speech.
End even the choice between types of 'douche' DOES matter in this game, thanks to the sympathy points. Grigori, the Russian informant for example. If you'll be aggressive, then obviously there's no way in hell he's going to help you, after you literally beat the informations out of him. If you'll be professional, he won't care much about you. He'll give you the info you want, but also he'll tell Surkov about you, because hey - money. But if you're suave, then he likes your guts, and doesn't inform Surkov which means easier next mission for you. Marburg pisses you off, and you want to kill him? Suave his ass off, so he'll hate you so much, he'll decide to stay in Rome instead of running, after the fight went bad for him. OR go the very alternative way:Graham_LRR said:
Stay in good contact with Madison, but don't romance her. Talk to her instead. If you'll play the dialog right (yeah, the very same Suave/Aggressive/Professional wheel), she'll tell you that she's a daughter of Alan Parker. Then, choose to disarm the bomb in Rome instead of saving her. Marburg ends up killing her. THEN, at the endgame in AP base, you have the choice of either downloading the interesting data before it gets wiped out, OR contact Parker. I did the latter, and as I expected, there was the option to bring up Marburg killing his daughter. Finally, Parker betrays Marburg, dies in the process but not before injuring that old bastard. Now you have wounded Marburg all for yourself!
And those are only two example. If Leland won't like your guts in the dialogs, he won't even propose switching sides to you. I can go on, and on (I'm a self proclaimed Alpha Protocol Fan Club leader
), but the bottom line is - every dialog is relevant in Alpha Protocol. It's not a Bioware's typical 'choose Paragon to be nice, Renegade to be a dick, but the outcome is the same but in a slightly, irrelevant way' (funnily enough, DA II seemed to copy the sympathy points, which was a GREAT upgrade after shamefully bad approve/dissaprove system).
ThisIsSnake said:
I firmly believe that cutscenes that have actual relevance (be it involving action or story), they shouldn't be blatantly ignored. If you skip a cutscene the first time it plays, what's the point in playing the damn game? You're usually missing a meaty chunk of story (and the like)!Graham_LRR said:I love cutscenes too! Just because I make fun of them doesn't mean I hate them
This doesn't mean I think cutscenes should be Unskippable! (New episodes every Monday at The Escapist! Pluuuuug~) Far from it! Personally, I like how some games seem to do it where the first time a scene is played, you can't skip it. After that has played once and you're either on a second playthrough or you died soon after and had to return to a save point before it? Definitely, skip away! You've seen the cutscene, so you know what happens.
I wasn't actually talking about GTA IV. Everything about that game was mediocre at best. I was referring to GTA 3 era (GTA 3, VC, SA, LCS, VCS). That's when GTA made more sense but it didn't actually take itself very seriously like GTA IV. San Andreas is a perfect example. I still think you need stories in games like GTA. When you feel like causing mayhem you can run around shooting things for no reason, and when you feel like engaging yourself in the story you can do that. And in GTA, story progression always opened up more land to explore, more vehicles, more weapons etc. So the game rewarded you for progressing through the story by allowing you even more freedom, making sure you don't get bored. And it was fun to play through these stories. I can't count how many times I played through Vice City and San Andreas because I really enjoyed the story progression and crazy characters, and because causing mayhem for no reason gets old after a while.Graham_LRR said:I love cutscenes too! Just because I make fun of them doesn't mean I hate them
But seriously, what I said was sandbox gameplay opposes a good story. You may like the story in GTA IV (I thought it was very 1-dimensional myself, but whatever), but nothing you do in gameplay really affects it. All the cutscenes together might make an interesting movie about an immigrant rising the crime ranks, but as a story-telling medium sandbox games are useless because there's too much choice for the gamer.
Someone else in the thread mentioned an instance where in the plot Nico is trying to keep a low-profile, but in the game he's running over pedestrian and blowing up helicopters. This is an example of the gameplay and story being at odds.
A sandbox game must be open and non-linear. Stories aren't, so forcing a non-linear experience around a linear narrative will always feel contrived.
But that's just me I guess. I really like all of my games to have a meaningful story. There are a few games that don't need stories, like Just Cause 2. And I clocked more hours in it than I did in most free roaming games. But I would still like it better if it had a good story.
