What Does It Mean To Player Character?

[Casual Shinji]

You can't factually say writing is good or bad, it's an art, not a science. I used as much facts as you can like how games are developed (with sources saying such). Writers in other mediums write for different mediums (TV/film/comics/novels), yet you almost never see an established writer from another medium doing a project in video games. There's reasons (good or bad) for that unless you think it's merely a coincidence.

Maybe for the same reason you rarely see established actors take on roles in videogames. Because it's still seen as a medium not worth the time or at least the genuine attention of the more mainstream media. Comics during the 60's and 70's (and probably 80's as well) didn't have movie or TV writers penning anything for that medium either. Most prominent directors still turn their nose up to working on a superhero movie.

The opening for Horizon is for world building. It wasn't "fun" but it kept my interest. I've never said Horizon is some beacon of perfection, I gave it an 8/10 (there's plenty it could get better at). It clicks far better than the majority of open world games.

It clicks better.. for you. Not in general, for you. That sequence was added later in production and you can tell. It was done because the writer wanted Aloy to find the Focus as a kid, so it was shoved in right at the start and gives a false representation of what the main game plays like. That's not good game design. Most open-world games (that aren't Rockstar) actually do a far better job. It gets going after that, but that whole sequence was not a good lead-in to the game.

It's fine if you like it, it's fine if you don't like it, it's fine whatever, but stop constantly bringing up Horizon as this rare good game among a sea of garbage, and The Witcher 3 as deserving of total scorn, like you're angry that we're not convinced of it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Maybe for the same reason you rarely see established actors take on roles in videogames. Because it's still seen as a medium not worth the time or at least the genuine attention of the more mainstream media. Comics during the 60's and 70's (and probably 80's as well) didn't have movie or TV writers penning anything for that medium either. Most prominent directors still turn their nose up to working on a superhero movie.

Regardless of the reasons, there is less talent in video game writing than there is in other mediums (that's just a fact), which leads to lower quality content. There's several good reasons why writers don't work in video games as well, which I've already mentioned, it's not just preconceived notions of the medium.

It clicks better.. for you. Not in general, for you. That sequence was added later in production and you can tell. It was done because the writer wanted Aloy to find the Focus as a kid, so it was shoved in right at the start and gives a false representation of what the main game plays like. That's not good game design. Most open-world games (that aren't Rockstar) actually do a far better job. It gets going after that, but that whole sequence was not a good lead-in to the game.

It's fine if you like it, it's fine if you don't like it, it's fine whatever, but stop constantly bringing up Horizon as this rare good game among a sea of garbage, and The Witcher 3 as deserving of total scorn, like you're angry that we're not convinced of it.

Having Aloy with the Focus early is important to the story IMO, it makes her ability to utilize technology better than just about everyone believable. I'm guessing that's why the writer wanted her to have it as a kid. Sure, it probably could've been executed better, maybe just a cutscene or something else, but it was needed.

I'm not going to put IMO after everything I say about a game because it's all opinions (outside of the few objective things you can actually say about a game). You can't even prove something like Citizen Kane is a better movie than Sharknado. I don't get why it seems you are asking me to prove X > Y before saying X > Y when that's impossible. If we aren't allowed to make said comments about a game, then video game discussion would amount to something like Jim Sterling's objective review of FFXIII. I've went into lengthy reasons why I find Horizon to be a really good game and why I don't like Witcher 3, either you find those reasons valid or not. And, even if you find a reason valid, it may impact the game less or more than it did for me. For example, I put a lot of emphasis how much time something wastes (because time is so finite) like how Witcher 3's loot system wasted me more time in inventory management than Aloy finding the Focus as a kid did, not to mention Aloy finding the Focus as a kid was needed IMO and Witcher 3's loot system wasn't needed IMO. Basically Witcher 3 had me spending a lot more time away from its good stuff than Horizon did, which usually equates to several elements diluting the core and/or poor execution of said elements.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Regardless of the reasons, there is less talent in video game writing than there is in other mediums (that's just a fact), which leads to lower quality content. There's several good reasons why writers don't work in video games as well, which I've already mentioned, it's not just preconceived notions of the medium.

You mentioned there are reason, I never actually heard you mention those reasons.

It leads to lower quality content if you choose to focus solely on the writing. The writing of movies and TV shows are of a lower quality than books too, yet they're certainly not a lesser way to experience a story considering what they add visually and sound wise. It's the same with interactivity in games.

I'm not going to put IMO after everything I say about a game because it's all opinions (outside of the few objective things you can actually say about a game). You can't even prove something like Citizen Kane is a better movie than Sharknado. I don't get why it seems you are asking me to prove X > Y before saying X > Y when that's impossible. If we aren't allowed to make said comments about a game, then video game discussion would amount to something like Jim Sterling's objective review of FFXIII. I've went into lengthy reasons why I find Horizon to be a really good game and why I don't like Witcher 3, either you find those reasons valid or not. And, even if you find a reason valid, it may impact the game less or more than it did for me. For example, I put a lot of emphasis how much time something wastes (because time is so finite) like how Witcher 3's loot system wasted me more time in inventory management than Aloy finding the Focus as a kid did, not to mention Aloy finding the Focus as a kid was needed IMO and Witcher 3's loot system wasn't needed IMO. Basically Witcher 3 had me spending a lot more time away from its good stuff than Horizon did, which usually equates to several elements diluting the core and/or poor execution of said elements.

Except you've shown on several occasions that something is thus eventhough you're actually just making assumptions. Like the whole 'phone games are better than Switch games' situation, where you're assured in your opinion that your prefered means of gaming is superior eventhough you're barely familiar with the other. Just like how you're assured there are barely any playable child characters in games, despite the indie scene being overflowing with them.

Your posts regarding games don't come across as 'this is how I feel', but as 'this is how it is and I refuse to accept any different'. And if you hate games, fine, but when you constantly come into gaming threads ready to claim how much worse games are to everything else it gets a bit bitter.

 

[Something Amyss]

I say board games are kicking video games asses in GAME DESIGN (mechanics and such), not because there isn't better role-playing (which PnP will always have the edge on).

Could be because board game design is easier than videogame design, as the former doesn't have to worry about UI, AI and other functions so the latter needs to properly integrate into the mechanics?

You have to admit, it's impressive how board game designers get the frame rate so consistent and smooth, though.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You mentioned there are reason, I never actually heard you mention those reasons.

It leads to lower quality content if you choose to focus solely on the writing. The writing of movies and TV shows are of a lower quality than books too, yet they're certainly not a lesser way to experience a story considering what they add visually and sound wise. It's the same with interactivity in games.

I said a few posts back that the way video games are developed backwards, creating the levels and gameplay first, then bringing in writers to tie it all together certainly isn't something that's going to bring established writers to the medium. That can be backed up with plenty evidence from Mirror's Edge to Uncharted to John Gonzalez talking about Horizon's development. Writers in video gaming have rather low creative control compared to other mediums. I'm pretty damn sure the compensation is far less in gaming than pretty much everything else for writers. Even a studio like Telltale where writing was everything for those type of games, the work environment wasn't good there. There's really no reason for a writer to choose to write for video games unless they can't get work anywhere else or they are super passionate about gaming.

I wouldn't say there's lower talent in movies and TV than books but different types of writing. Movies being a set length requires rather specific limits a book obviously doesn't have. With TV shows rather recently no longer being held to episodic formats, there's really not much a show can't do that a book can. TV networks basically required episodic shows so viewers wouldn't get "lost" and something serial like a Lost was a rarity. Now, serial type shows are the norm from Game of Thrones to Stranger Things. Writers are not trapped into writing episodic TV that must be 40mins long. Episodes of shows now can be longer and shorter depending on the episode as well. TV has changed quite a lot in the last 10 or so years.

Except you've shown on several occasions that something is thus eventhough you're actually just making assumptions. Like the whole 'phone games are better than Switch games' situation, where you're assured in your opinion that your prefered means of gaming is superior eventhough you're barely familiar with the other. Just like how you're assured there are barely any playable child characters in games, despite the indie scene being overflowing with them.

Your posts regarding games don't come across as 'this is how I feel', but as 'this is how it is and I refuse to accept any different'. And if you hate games, fine, but when you constantly come into gaming threads ready to claim how much worse games are to everything else it gets a bit bitter.

I've played all the Nintendo franchises, I know how they play. I know what's available on the Switch, I even said Snipperclips was one of the most interesting games on the system (and I have played it as well). Do I really need to play Octopath Traveler to know it's not for me as I know what a "classic" JRPG plays like? Do I really need to play Watch Dogs 3 or Cyberpunk to understand how either of those games play? I've played plenty of Ubisoft games and immersive sims, I get how they play. Sure, I don't know how good/bad the stories are but I already know 99.9% of the game mechanics and gameplay without even playing them. I don't need to play Wolfenstein Youngbloods to know its easily the worst of the current series (RPG elements for no reason other than turning it into a grind). I played those indie games with child characters (you can check my trophies if you want; Limbo, Inside, Braid are all there) but they don't talk or anything, they have no character, you might as well play as an inanimate object in those games. Stranger Things the game was a better "kids" game than any of these indie games.

I've just been pretty disappointed in video games the last 2 generations because games are actually devolving quite often. For RPGs to have actually gotten better recently like what Larian Studios has been making, we actually went back to what RPGs were like 20 years ago. It just shows how the genre has devolved over the years. Just look at how mechanically poor the new Deus Ex games are compared to the original game. Fandoms have literally brought back dead games because nothing new is better than them (City of Heroes is a super recent example). Video games can be so much better on both a design level and a writing level. And they are still being developed backwards (as described above) most of the time. TV was in a bad place for a long time with shows being shoehorned into very specific formulas like video games are currently. Video games have even more potential and I would love for them to reach their potential.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I said a few posts back that the way video games are developed backwards, creating the levels and gameplay first, then bringing in writers to tie it all together certainly isn't something that's going to bring established writers to the medium. That can be backed up with plenty evidence from Mirror's Edge to Uncharted to John Gonzalez talking about Horizon's development. Writers in video gaming have rather low creative control compared to other mediums. I'm pretty damn sure the compensation is far less in gaming than pretty much everything else for writers. Even a studio like Telltale where writing was everything for those type of games, the work environment wasn't good there. There's really no reason for a writer to choose to write for video games unless they can't get work anywhere else or they are super passionate about gaming.

And you don't think writers for movies deal with similar issues? Writers really don't have that much control over a project. It tends to be a running gag in the entertainment industry. Sets, costumes, and casting are usually being made while many scripts are still being written, and directors will often make their own decisions against the will of the writers.

You mention Uncharted as evidence, which I presume you mean Uncharted 3 and the setpieces having been made without making sure it fit the script, but Uncharted 2 was pretty much made in the same fashion. That train sequence was added not because it was written in the script, but because Naughty Dog really wanted to show off that tech. The only difference is that with U2 it didn't feel crowbarred in. Action movies aren't waiting around for the script to finish to start designing and practicing all those stunts and setpieces neither.

And Telltale's demise has nothing to do with writers or writing not being spearheaded in games, so I don't see what the point is in bringing that up.

I wouldn't say there's lower talent in movies and TV than books but different types of writing. Movies being a set length requires rather specific limits a book obviously doesn't have. With TV shows rather recently no longer being held to episodic formats, there's really not much a show can't do that a book can. TV networks basically required episodic shows so viewers wouldn't get "lost" and something serial like a Lost was a rarity. Now, serial type shows are the norm from Game of Thrones to Stranger Things. Writers are not trapped into writing episodic TV that must be 40mins long. Episodes of shows now can be longer and shorter depending on the episode as well. TV has changed quite a lot in the last 10 or so years.

And neither GoT and Stranger Things are great examples, seeing as how they both plummeted in quality.

I've played all the Nintendo franchises, I know how they play. I know what's available on the Switch, I even said Snipperclips was one of the most interesting games on the system (and I have played it as well). Do I really need to play Octopath Traveler to know it's not for me as I know what a "classic" JRPG plays like? Do I really need to play Watch Dogs 3 or Cyberpunk to understand how either of those games play? I've played plenty of Ubisoft games and immersive sims, I get how they play. Sure, I don't know how good/bad the stories are but I already know 99.9% of the game mechanics and gameplay without even playing them. I don't need to play Wolfenstein Youngbloods to know its easily the worst of the current series (RPG elements for no reason other than turning it into a grind). I played those indie games with child characters (you can check my trophies if you want; Limbo, Inside, Braid are all there) but they don't talk or anything, they have no character, you might as well play as an inanimate object in those games. Stranger Things the game was a better "kids" game than any of these indie games.

Oh, you can say you don't like them, but if you haven't even played them don't say you know they're worse, because you don't. I don't care if you've played the franchises, you can't say you know how Breath of the Wild plays based on the knowledge of the previous games anymore than you can say how Resident Evil 4 plays based on its previous entries.

And you weren't talking about there being "better" kids in other mediums then there are in games, you said there weren't any period, which wasn't true. And characters like Wander and Ico are equally mute with what little they say. Are those characters worse than speaking roles in TV, or do they work for the game they are in? What would making the kids in Limbo and Inside speak add to their character or the game overall? And no, they're not just inanimate objects that could be replaced by anything. If that were true the games would have exactly the same tone if you replaced them with flamingo's.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And you don't think writers for movies deal with similar issues? Writers really don't have that much control over a project. It tends to be a running gag in the entertainment industry. Sets, costumes, and casting are usually being made while many scripts are still being written, and directors will often make their own decisions against the will of the writers.

You mention Uncharted as evidence, which I presume you mean Uncharted 3 and the setpieces having been made without making sure it fit the script, but Uncharted 2 was pretty much made in the same fashion. That train sequence was added not because it was written in the script, but because Naughty Dog really wanted to show off that tech. The only difference is that with U2 it didn't feel crowbarred in. Action movies aren't waiting around for the script to finish to start designing and practicing all those stunts and setpieces neither.

And Telltale's demise has nothing to do with writers or writing not being spearheaded in games, so I don't see what the point is in bringing that up.

Film has always been a director's medium and TV for writers with regards to control. In film, the writer still gets to write whatever screenplay they want, though once it's purchased, the director and everyone else can change it in any way. I met all of Uncharteds and I said a few posts above that the 2nd game was good due to blind luck basically. I was just saying that Telltale should've been a good place to work for writers (as the writing should dictate the game) but even that was a bad place to work.

And neither GoT and Stranger Things are great examples, seeing as how they both plummeted in quality.

Stranger Things S3 was really good. GoT I haven't really cared for since The Red Wedding and the ending was awful. The main point is that so many shows are serial in structure now. I think the only show I watch that's episodic is Brooklyn Nine-Nine.

Oh, you can say you don't like them, but if you haven't even played them don't say you know they're worse, because you don't. I don't care if you've played the franchises, you can't say you know how Breath of the Wild plays based on the knowledge of the previous games anymore than you can say how Resident Evil 4 plays based on its previous entries.

And you weren't talking about there being "better" kids in other mediums then there are in games, you said there weren't any period, which wasn't true. And characters like Wander and Ico are equally mute with what little they say. Are those characters worse than speaking roles in TV, or do they work for the game they are in? What would making the kids in Limbo and Inside speak add to their character or the game overall? And no, they're not just inanimate objects that could be replaced by anything. If that were true the games would have exactly the same tone if you replaced them with flamingo's.

The Switch doesn't have many games that play drastically different than the standard genres. BotW is Zelda gameplay with systemic elements and an open world structure. There's very few modern video games that have design anywhere near modern board games. Unless the Switch has an amazing unknown treasure trove of games that are exclusive to it, then the games are better than board games. PS4 games aren't better either.

RE4 was new for what it accomplished as 3rd-person shooting was not good at all at the time. It was a new experience even though now it seems super standard. BotW is not RE4 fresh.

I did forget about The Last Guardian, that's like a kid's dream having a pet like that. Again, I had something like Stranger Things on the mind. I would say Wander is more high-school age at least if not older. Ico at least emotes and cares about Yordo. You could replace the kid from Limbo with a flamingo, it would just have to be black is all. You can't even say if Braid's main character is even a kid. You could replace Inside's main character with anyone.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Film has always been a director's medium and TV for writers with regards to control. In film, the writer still gets to write whatever screenplay they want, though once it's purchased, the director and everyone else can change it in any way. I met all of Uncharteds and I said a few posts above that the 2nd game was good due to blind luck basically. I was just saying that Telltale should've been a good place to work for writers (as the writing should dictate the game) but even that was a bad place to work.

And therefor you were again being hyperbolic when claiming games are designed backward as opposed to other mediums. Movies are a director's medium, games are a gameplay medium. Makes sense doesn't it?

Stranger Things S3 was really good. GoT I haven't really cared for since The Red Wedding and the ending was awful. The main point is that so many shows are serial in structure now. I think the only show I watch that's episodic is Brooklyn Nine-Nine.

Yet that serial structure doesn't stop two of the most critically acclaimed shows in recent years to go to shit. Stranger Things is even a prime example of continuing on past its peak. I'm sorry, TV shows have just as much a tendency to be shit as videogames.

The Switch doesn't have many games that play drastically different than the standard genres. BotW is Zelda gameplay with systemic elements and an open world structure.

Oh, so you've played it then?

There's very few modern video games that have design anywhere near modern board games.

You know, those boardgames of yours better be the most magical thing to have ever existed considering they're better than games you haven't even played yet.

RE4 was new for what it accomplished as 3rd-person shooting was not good at all at the time. It was a new experience even though now it seems super standard. BotW is not RE4 fresh.

Again, you know this how? Because the consensus among many people is that Breath of the Wild kills most open-world games by accomplishing something no other in the genre ever has. Not that I completely agree with the killing part, but they're definitely right on what it accomplishes, which is on a similar level as what RE4 did with shooters. But I guess you know more about a game you haven't played than others that have.

I did forget about The Last Guardian, that's like a kid's dream having a pet like that. Again, I had something like Stranger Things on the mind. I would say Wander is more high-school age at least if not older. Ico at least emotes and cares about Yordo. You could replace the kid from Limbo with a flamingo, it would just have to be black is all. You can't even say if Braid's main character is even a kid. You could replace Inside's main character with anyone.

If all that's necessary for a character is to speak than you could replace every character with something else. You could have Wander be a talking dog. The whole point to Inside is that you're a kid confronted with yet slipping past all this mundane, everyday, dystopian horror. The 'innocence contrasted with the evil adult world' is massively overplayed in indie games by now, but it's not something you can just replace with anything and get the same effect.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Games don?t exactly need good writing and storytelling to be good like other genres, because that?s not the primary reason people really play games. If they have great writing, awesome bonus. But this insistence on writing and storytelling to be such an integral part of games too often only detracts from the interactivity they are supposed to be about.

Thinking about it: how often has experiencing any storytelling in a game meant you were also experiencing great gameplay at the same time? Most games are like a light switch in that regard. Sure they are getting better at melding the two (Uncharted?s real time set pieces, God of War?s seamless presentation, Dark Souls? uncovering most of the story through gameplay, The Last Guardian?s boy/beast relationship, etc.) but after decades of gaming there is still little evidence contrary to the fact they have become increasingly bound to the same conventions as TV and movies. Maybe that?s what sells, but is that also what most people remember of the content they paid for? I appreciate the effort put into the story mode of MK11 for instance, but it?s not what keeps bringing me back while I?ve yet to get into Detroit: Become Human despite my high level of curiosity.

I have also never understood why board games would ever be compared to video games. They are both technically ?games?, sure, but a horse shares more in common with a car and even that is a pointless comparison.

 

[CaitSeith]

But this insistence on writing and storytelling to be such an integral part of games too often only detracts from the interactivity they are supposed to be about.

Only if one doesn't see (or wants) any difference between genres and tastes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And therefor you were again being hyperbolic when claiming games are designed backward as opposed to other mediums. Movies are a director's medium, games are a gameplay medium. Makes sense doesn't it?

I wasn't being hyperbolic. Movies aren't created without a script and then tied together later. Jackie Chan choreographs his fight scenes to be mini-stories for example, much thought is put into those fights. Sure there are bad directors who just throw in shit because they think it's cool and plenty of movies with troubled productions just like anything else. However, those movies aren't being nominated for "Best Narrative" like Uncharted 3 was. If Uncharted 3 was a movie, it would probably be getting Razzies.

Yet that serial structure doesn't stop two of the most critically acclaimed shows in recent years to go to shit. Stranger Things is even a prime example of continuing on past its peak. I'm sorry, TV shows have just as much a tendency to be shit as videogames.

You're missing the point that writers are allowed to do whatever now with TV when very recently they weren't. It ain't going to stop bad shows from getting made. List me all the 8+/10 video games that got released this year, TV is gonna to kill that list. There was literally a 3-year gap when I did not play a video game that was 8+/10.

You know, those boardgames of yours better be the most magical thing to have ever existed considering they're better than games you haven't even played yet.

I've played lots of video games and modern board games way way better than the vast majority of modern video games I've played.

Again, you know this how? Because the consensus among many people is that Breath of the Wild kills most open-world games by accomplishing something no other in the genre ever has. Not that I completely agree with the killing part, but they're definitely right on what it accomplishes, which is on a similar level as what RE4 did with shooters. But I guess you know more about a game you haven't played than others that have.

There's nothing mechanically new about BotW. The new thing that BotW might do that no other game has is mesh all these known elements together better than anything else. RE4 was possibly the 1st good 3rd-person shooter ever made. BotW is not the 1st good open world game. My one caveat I have for BotW is how much will the content feel cut up and just spread across the world feeling chore-y (which a few people here have said).

If all that's necessary for a character is to speak than you could replace every character with something else. You could have Wander be a talking dog. The whole point to Inside is that you're a kid confronted with yet slipping past all this mundane, everyday, dystopian horror. The 'innocence contrasted with the evil adult world' is massively overplayed in indie games by now, but it's not something you can just replace with anything and get the same effect.

You can replace/change Wander and the game would be just as good. No one's gonna throw a pissy fit about it like when say Raiden was secretly the main character instead of Snake in MGS2. I probably used the wrong wording but the characters in the games I listed aren't very well defined by any means. You could have another kid in say a re-release of Inside 10 years from now and not many would notice. Replace the one of the actors in Stranger Things and everyone would instantly notice.

Games don?t exactly need good writing and storytelling to be good like other genres, because that?s not the primary reason people really play games. If they have great writing, awesome bonus. But this insistence on writing and storytelling to be such an integral part of games too often only detracts from the interactivity they are supposed to be about.

Thinking about it: how often has experiencing any storytelling in a game meant you were also experiencing great gameplay at the same time? Most games are like a light switch in that regard. Sure they are getting better at melding the two (Uncharted?s real time set pieces, God of War?s seamless presentation, Dark Souls? uncovering most of the story through gameplay, The Last Guardian?s boy/beast relationship, etc.) but after decades of gaming there is still little evidence contrary to the fact they have become increasingly bound to the same conventions as TV and movies. Maybe that?s what sells, but is that also what most people remember of the content they paid for? I appreciate the effort put into the story mode of MK11 for instance, but it?s not what keeps bringing me back while I?ve yet to get into Detroit: Become Human despite my high level of curiosity.

I have also never understood why board games would ever be compared to video games. They are both technically ?games?, sure, but a horse shares more in common with a car and even that is a pointless comparison.

I'm not saying every game needs good writing but so many of them attempt movie-quality cinematics and storylines and fail horribly. When an rather significant part of a game is not good, then how is the game some masterpiece? Imagine those games with writing on par with your favorite movies, TV, books, comics and think about how much better they would be. Think about the Bioshock games doing their ideas justice with a legit good plot. RPGs are usually loved and remembered for their stories more so than their gameplay. If a game (or anything) is attempting something and failing hard at it, then it could be way better obviously.

To me games are games, whether actual sports to board games to video games. A good constructed game in any medium is a good game. Game mechanics are good or bad because of the same reasons regardless of medium as well.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I wasn't being hyperbolic. Movies aren't created without a script and then tied together later. Jackie Chan choreographs his fight scenes to be mini-stories for example, much thought is put into those fights. Sure there are bad directors who just throw in shit because they think it's cool and plenty of movies with troubled productions just like anything else. However, those movies aren't being nominated for "Best Narrative" like Uncharted 3 was. If Uncharted 3 was a movie, it would probably be getting Razzies.

Green Book won Best Picture this year.. From the Oscars.. The most prestigious annual film award in the world. And that wasn't the first time. The Oscars are well known for letting floppy and forgetable movies win Best Picture. Hey, remember Crash?

And movies aren't created without a script? Are you serious? Shaun of the Dead pretty much didn't have a script. Hayao Miyazaki flies by the seat of his pants when making a movie. Drive had a script till the director decided to chop heaps of it out. And Mad Max: Fury Road and The Abyss had extremely troubled productions. And that's just me mentioning a fraction of the good movies.

You seem to think movie making is this properly oiled machine. It really isn't.

You're missing the point that writers are allowed to do whatever now with TV when very recently they weren't. It ain't going to stop bad shows from getting made. List me all the 8+/10 video games that got released this year, TV is gonna to kill that list. There was literally a 3-year gap when I did not play a video game that was 8+/10.

So I need to show proof based on your standards? Nice try.

There's nothing mechanically new about BotW. The new thing that BotW might do that no other game has is mesh all these known elements together better than anything else. RE4 was possibly the 1st good 3rd-person shooter ever made. BotW is not the 1st good open world game. My one caveat I have for BotW is how much will the content feel cut up and just spread across the world feeling chore-y (which a few people here have said).

There was nothing mechanically new about RE4 either. Seriously, what gameplay mechanic was actually new? And the over-the-shoulder doesn't count. That's not a new mechanic, but a repositioning of the camera, which I think RE4 wasn't even the first in doing.

BotW is the first open-world game that actually does exploration right. It's exploration for the sake of exploration, not to find new gear or weapons. You go places because they look interesting to go, you run up a hill to see what's up top or behind it, and you climb cliffs and mountains just so you can be in a different area. The climb-everything mechanic has allowed the developers to add a level of verticality to the gameworld that no other open-world ever has. Sure, Spider-Man has verticality too, but there's pretty much nothing going on in that world outside of missions, and that game doesn't even come close to the tactile feel of BotW. Another thing it does better than most other games. Oh and it's cellshaded; a cellshaded open-world game.

You can replace/change Wander and the game would be just as good. No one's gonna throw a pissy fit about it like when say Raiden was secretly the main character instead of Snake in MGS2.

Replace him with a character that fits with the world's aesthetic? Sure. Replace him with a tube of toothpaste? No, that wouldn't make the game just as good.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Green Book won Best Picture this year.. From the Oscars.. The most prestigious annual film award in the world. And that wasn't the first time. The Oscars are well known for letting floppy and forgetable movies win Best Picture. Hey, remember Crash?

And movies aren't created without a script? Are you serious? Shaun of the Dead pretty much didn't have a script. Hayao Miyazaki flies by the seat of his pants when making a movie. Drive had a script till the director decided to chop heaps of it out. And Mad Max: Fury Road and The Abyss had extremely troubled productions. And that's just me mentioning a fraction of the good movies.

You seem to think movie making is this properly oiled machine. It really isn't.

Haven't seen Green Book but Crash was good (maybe not Oscar good), the beginning started pretty heavy-handed with the racism though. Crash ain't close to how bad Uncharted 3 is though. I'm just giving generally how movies are made, every creator (directors and writers) work in their own way. I'm not saying TV or movies are perfectly oiled machines, that would be crazy. Though they are far more oiled than video games when Uncharted 3 level writing gets nominated for best narrative, we definitely aren't close to a good place.

Shaun of the Dead pretty much didn't have a script.

Huh? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue3EA4RTD5M]

So I need to show proof based on your standards? Nice try.

There's hardly a show I watch now that I wouldn't rate an 8+/10 whereas there's hardly any video games I'd rate an 8+/10. How can I be so hard on things when when I'm giving 8+s in other mediums just fine? And yeah, it is hard to give video games 8+s because they try to do more as most try to have movie-quality cinematics and also obviously be a game, it's a lot harder to do both than just doing one. I don't give passes, like I'm not going to give RPGs with average combat a great score saying the combat is "good for an RPG"; no, it's not good. If you can't do good combat, don't make the bulk of your gameplay focused on combat regardless of the game you're making. Platinum knows it can't write that well so they write cheesy, campy storylines that are at least entertaining, the story part of their games are basically B-movies and they succeed at being that.

There was nothing mechanically new about RE4 either. Seriously, what gameplay mechanic was actually new? And the over-the-shoulder doesn't count. That's not a new mechanic, but a repositioning of the camera, which I think RE4 wasn't even the first in doing.

BotW is the first open-world game that actually does exploration right. It's exploration for the sake of exploration, not to find new gear or weapons. You go places because they look interesting to go, you run up a hill to see what's up top or behind it, and you climb cliffs and mountains just so you can be in a different area. The climb-everything mechanic has allowed the developers to add a level of verticality to the gameworld that no other open-world ever has. Sure, Spider-Man has verticality too, but there's pretty much nothing going on in that world outside of missions, and that game doesn't even come close to the tactile feel of BotW. Another thing it does better than most other games. Oh and it's cellshaded; a cellshaded open-world game.

RE4 was the 1st good TPS (on console as a game like Max Payne basically controls like FPS just with a character on screen). Sure it wasn't the 1st TPS, but compared to stuff like Winback it was the 1st one worth experiencing and it's still a damn good game today. That's how bad TPSs were that a horror series made the 1st good one.

I've played games that I want to explore just to explore. I'm not saying Zelda isn't the best, it could be, but it's not the 1st. I'd say it's pretty sad if out of deluge of open world games we've had that Zelda is the only one where you just wanna explore to explore. If that IS what you're saying, then isn't like every open world game besides Zelda pretty lacking in a rather important area, meaning that it would be pretty hard to say any other open world game is 8+/10 (aka great) then.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Haven't seen Green Book but Crash was good (maybe not Oscar good), the beginning started pretty heavy-handed with the racism though. Crash ain't close to how bad Uncharted 3 is though. I'm just giving generally how movies are made, every creator (directors and writers) work in their own way. I'm not saying TV or movies are perfectly oiled machines, that would be crazy. Though they are far more oiled than video games when Uncharted 3 level writing gets nominated for best narrative, we definitely aren't close to a good place.

Okay, this is you just covering your ears now. Crash was better than Uncharted 3? By what, a fraction? And because U3 won anything it's proof that ALL videogames are made worse than movies? Come on, man.

Shaun of the Dead pretty much didn't have a script.

Huh? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue3EA4RTD5M]

That's hardly a traditional script, now is it? This wouldn't exactly get you an A in scriptwritting. It's messy and unorganized. It's the excecution that made that movie what it is, not the script.

RE4 was the 1st good TPS (on console as a game like Max Payne basically controls like FPS just with a character on screen). Sure it wasn't the 1st TPS, but compared to stuff like Winback it was the 1st one worth experiencing and it's still a damn good game today. That's how bad TPSs were that a horror series made the 1st good one.

I've played games that I want to explore just to explore. I'm not saying Zelda isn't the best, it could be, but it's not the 1st. I'd say it's pretty sad if out of deluge of open world games we've had that Zelda is the only one where you just wanna explore to explore. If that IS what you're saying, then isn't like every open world game besides Zelda pretty lacking in a rather important area, meaning that it would be pretty hard to say any other open world game is 8+/10 (aka great) then.

So you praise RE4 for doing something exceptional, while not original, but accost BotW for pressumably doing something exceptional because it isn't original. Everyone has their preferences, I guess, but that's not a very objective way of making your point.

And stop bringing scores into this. If you want to discuss the merrit of reviewers putting a final score on entertainment that's fine, but they have nothing to do with discussing the quality of games.

And yeah, most other open-world games are lacking in that area, which is what makes BotW so outstanding. And no, just because of that it doesn't make other open-world games worse. Just as the release of RE4 didn't make games like Metal Gear Solid 1 and Ratchet and Clank 2 worse, or SotC making the Boss fights in God of War and RE4 bad. Because BotW doesn't have the combat of HZD nor does it have the characterization and writing of The Witcher 3 -- that's something that makes those open-world games outstanding. BotW actually has tons of issues, but the one thing it does exceptional it does better than any other game ever has.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Okay, this is you just covering your ears now. Crash was better than Uncharted 3? By what, a fraction? And because U3 won anything it's proof that ALL videogames are made worse than movies? Come on, man.

What are you talking about? You're taking like every statement I made and acting like it's a blanket statement. You just saying a couple movies had troubled productions proves video game development is fine? It doesn't wash away the fact that video games are mostly developed backwards. Most movies have scripts before production, do they not? Whereas, quite a significant amount of video games do not. How is story and gameplay supposed to mesh and sync up in that kind of environment?

Crash is better in the sense that the plot actually makes sense, how about that? And I cared far more about the characters in Crash whereas I couldn't stand the characters in Uncharted 3 because they weren't consistent with themselves (from past games) like how Sully leaves the adventure in UC2 because he's too old and in UC3 he'll never leave Drake's side. And the one thing that Uncharted 3 keeps banging the player on the head with (that Drake's being selfish forcing Sully to come along, you know, the THEME) is just completely given up on at the end. It would be like Crash giving up on racism at the end just cuz.

That's hardly a traditional script, now is it? This wouldn't exactly get you an A in scriptwritting. It's messy and unorganized. It's the excecution that made that movie what it is, not the script.

Everyone has their own process. It shows Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg thoroughly planned out the movie before shooting, they even had the seating arrangements for the car ride to the pub. That's the whole issue where video game production fails at and it's like basic common sense, it's like starting construction on a building without blueprints. Even Horizon was developed with the concept first BUT they brought in a writer and allowed him to basically fix everything that they did wrong/didn't work, which almost never happens (from John Gonzalez's own mouth).

So you praise RE4 for doing something exceptional, while not original, but accost BotW for pressumably doing something exceptional because it isn't original. Everyone has their preferences, I guess, but that's not a very objective way of making your point.

And stop bringing scores into this. If you want to discuss the merrit of reviewers putting a final score on entertainment that's fine, but they have nothing to do with discussing the quality of games.

And yeah, most other open-world games are lacking in that area, which is what makes BotW so outstanding. And no, just because of that it doesn't make other open-world games worse. Just as the release of RE4 didn't make games like Metal Gear Solid 1 and Ratchet and Clank 2 worse, or SotC making the Boss fights in God of War and RE4 bad. Because BotW doesn't have the combat of HZD nor does it have the characterization and writing of The Witcher 3 -- that's something that makes those open-world games outstanding. BotW actually has tons of issues, but the one thing it does exceptional it does better than any other game ever has.

I'm not accosting Zelda, just saying it ain't as groundbreaking is all. RE4 sorta created a genre, TPS, (or at least was the spark that made it what it is now) that it kinda isn't even apart of as it's a horror game, that's pretty unique. As you said, Zelda did one element of an established genre exceptional, I don't think that is the same ballpark as RE4. That doesn't make RE4 "better" than Zelda, just different.

I'm not bringing in reviewer scores into it, but my personal scores. Every piece of content I take in, I'm hoping from something really good/great (8+/10) and video games have the lowest percentage of not hitting that mark than every other medium. I just finished up watching The Boys and it was awesome. I'd probably have to go back to Horizon for the last video game I played that's 8+/10 FOR ME while I can list at least 10 seasons of TV that were that good or better since playing Horizon. The point is how much great TV there is vs great video games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

What are you talking about? You're taking like every statement I made and acting like it's a blanket statement. You just saying a couple movies had troubled productions proves video game development is fine? It doesn't wash away the fact that video games are mostly developed backwards. Most movies have scripts before production, do they not? Whereas, quite a significant amount of video games do not. How is story and gameplay supposed to mesh and sync up in that kind of environment?

You're making blanket statements right here. I never claimed videogame developement is fine, I'm disclaiming your statement that most videogames are developed backward as opposed to movies, which you have no proof for. Or that videogames don't have scripts before production and movies do. You only have your assumption because you prefer one over the other.

Both movies and videogames have equal amounts messy productions, because you're dealing with thousands of people working in different areas of expertise to create a cohesive story.

Crash is better in the sense that the plot actually makes sense, how about that? And I cared far more about the characters in Crash whereas I couldn't stand the characters in Uncharted 3 because they weren't consistent with themselves (from past games) like how Sully leaves the adventure in UC2 because he's too old and in UC3 he'll never leave Drake's side. And the one thing that Uncharted 3 keeps banging the player on the head with (that Drake's being selfish forcing Sully to come along, you know, the THEME) is just completely given up on at the end. It would be like Crash giving up on racism at the end just cuz.

Crash deals with an actual important issue that it completely flubs with terrible writing and 1-dimensional characters, Uncharted 3 is an action game with major inconsistencies. They both suck. And Crash won an Oscar. Something you claimed doesn't happen to bad movies as opposed to videogames.

I'm not accosting Zelda, just saying it ain't as groundbreaking is all. RE4 sorta created a genre, TPS, (or at least was the spark that made it what it is now) that it kinda isn't even apart of as it's a horror game, that's pretty unique. As you said, Zelda did one element of an established genre exceptional, I don't think that is the same ballpark as RE4. That doesn't make RE4 "better" than Zelda, just different.

Just as RE4's over-the-shoulder aiming affects everything in the game, so too does BotW's climb-everything mechanic affect everything in that game. That one thing it does exceptionally well is give a sense of physical interaction, whether through climbing, chopping down trees, setting grass on fire to create an updraft, surfing on your shield etc. All of this adds to wanting to explore everything because you can interact with it. HZD has many beautiful structures and ruins along the game map, but they mostly feel artificial because you can't interact with them, and what little you can do feels extremely ridgid. BotW gets rid of that shield and allows you to climb it all. You don't need to awkwardly videogame-hop yourself up a mountain or any other structure nearly every game isn't designed for you to go. That's how it has cracked open the open-world genre.

I'm not bringing in reviewer scores into it, but my personal scores. Every piece of content I take in, I'm hoping from something really good/great (8+/10) and video games have the lowest percentage of not hitting that mark than every other medium. I just finished up watching The Boys and it was awesome. I'd probably have to go back to Horizon for the last video game I played that's 8+/10 FOR ME while I can list at least 10 seasons of TV that were that good or better since playing Horizon. The point is how much great TV there is vs great video games.

So then why does it matter to you that reviewers give out scores you don't agree with? If these scores are just personal what do you care that a game you think is a 6 gets an 8 or a 9?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You're making blanket statements right here. I never claimed videogame developement is fine, I'm disclaiming your statement that most videogames are developed backward as opposed to movies, which you have no proof for. Or that videogames don't have scripts before production and movies do. You only have your assumption because you prefer one over the other.

Both movies and videogames have equal amounts messy productions, because you're dealing with thousands of people working in different areas of expertise to create a cohesive story.

I provided several pieces of proof from Mirror's Edge and Uncharted along with John Gonzalez (veteran writer in the industry) saying as much (Guerilla's creative environment is "rare" for the medium). I'm not going to do a research paper on it. It's pretty obvious playing lots of games that the writers and game designers aren't working with each other very often; each doing their own thing and it gets smashed together and it's mainly luck if it all works out most of the time.

Crash deals with an actual important issue that it completely flubs with terrible writing and 1-dimensional characters, Uncharted 3 is an action game with major inconsistencies. They both suck. And Crash won an Oscar. Something you claimed doesn't happen to bad movies as opposed to videogames.

Don Cheadle is never 1-dimensional!!!!! I saw Crash over 10 years ago, I don't recall it that well, but I remember liking it while having a beginning that wasn't that good, and Don Cheadle. I definitely don't think it sucked and is probably remembered as a solid movie but just not deserving of Best Picture. If I was forced to watch Crash again or play Uncharted 3 again, I'd definitely watch Crash again easily.

Just as RE4's over-the-shoulder aiming affects everything in the game, so too does BotW's climb-everything mechanic affect everything in that game. That one thing it does exceptionally well is give a sense of physical interaction, whether through climbing, chopping down trees, setting grass on fire to create an updraft, surfing on your shield etc. All of this adds to wanting to explore everything because you can interact with it. HZD has many beautiful structures and ruins along the game map, but they mostly feel artificial because you can't interact with them, and what little you can do feels extremely ridgid. BotW gets rid of that shield and allows you to climb it all. You don't need to awkwardly videogame-hop yourself up a mountain or any other structure nearly every game isn't designed for you to go. That's how it has cracked open the open-world genre.

I can't really properly agree or disagree as I haven't played Zelda. I definitely agree more interactivity is needed in gaming as that's what gaming is about yet we are saddled with very little to interact with even within genres that should be high in that regard. I just watched this NoClip video on Hitman [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjvrTa6IKW8] today, and that's what game design is all about. There's so much processing going on for other stuff, that the graphics have to take a hit. Whereas most AAA games are graphix, graphix, graphix!!! And the game under-the-hood is really nothing that complex. That's why I say board games are better because they live on die on game design alone. Anyway, back to Zelda/RE4. Like I said it's hard for me to prove anything even to myself without playing Zelda as it does feel like it does systemic elements (setting fire to grass for updraft) probably the best of any open world game as other devs like Ubisoft haven't really evolved their systems. I do think the most important part of exploring is wanting to see what's around the next corner, which is rather intangible. Most games think finding loot rewards triggers wanting to explore, that's backwards. Anyway, it's a rather tough argument either way and I haven't played Zelda so I'll agree that I'd need to play it so be divisive on Zelda vs RE4.

So then why does it matter to you that reviewers give out scores you don't agree with? If these scores are just personal what do you care that a game you think is a 6 gets an 8 or a 9?

I don't really care that much what critics give to anything outside of leading me to checkout something I normally wouldn't have. Though I think it's literally impossible for 50-100 people to all think something is so good that it gets an average score of 98/100, professional video game criticism is just plain broken. Of course, that's a whole different discussion. What I'm saying is there's more dearth of great video games IMO than any other medium currently, which is due to all the reasons I've listed from how video games are developed backwards to the least writing talent among the mediums to having the unique problem of not only making a good game (gameplay, mechanics, etc.) but also at the same time making a good movie (characters, narrative, etc.) AND also having to have both those things mesh with each other. The medium is too young to be consistently good at either yet alone consistently good at both. Lastly, video games seem to repeat the same mistakes far far too often and it only seems to be getting worse in that regard the last 2 gens (the newest Wolfenstein is a microcosm of that). Anyone thinking video gaming is anywhere near a golden age is fooling themselves.