What Sands of Time Gets Right

[coldfrog]

Yahtzee,

I really wish you hadn't written this article. I understand and agree with the acclaim for PoP's gameplay, but I feel like you should have kept your enjoyment of the story a secret. You're a bright mind in this industry, and it's important that you continue to hold a mirror to the video game medium so constructively. When you start oozing about how much you love and relate to the characters in a PoP story, you kind of hurt that credibility. I'm not saying you shouldn't have attachments to games which have lavished you with fond memories, but you definitely shouldn't share them. Speak about these things objectively as a critic, not subjectively.

On a side note, since you've provided me with the writing space, I'd like to see more strong female portrayals in video games, like Bonnie MacFarland. The only relatable characters are realistic ones, whether they have names or not.

P.S. the cake is a lie, motherf*cker

No critics are truly objective, but it's really OK to admit it. Sometimes liking something goes deeper than technical details, and if all you ever focus on are those details, you're going to end up with the boring mediocrity that insults Yahtzee and many other gamers (myself included). Maybe you want Yahtzee to be a cold, calculating, dick-joke-spewing robot, but I prefer my game information to come from a human. It was his repeated praise for this game and its characterization that made me want to play it, and it was worth every minute (except for some of the longer combat sequences). Really, how do you quantify a game's emotional impact on you?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Yes, Sands of Time had superb platforming. Assassins Creed 2 did it better.

... Uh... what? asscreed2 was likely the slowest and clunkiest platformer I've ever played. Even those timed crypt sections are frequently forced into a restart, because you run into a situation the developers didn't intend, but should work. Not to mention hundreds of times throughout that game you're standing on the side of a wall, with a grip within arm's reach, and the moron just remains completely still or, for some reason decides you're telling him to jump backwards, off the wall, 1500 cubits to his death. Then they introduce that retarded "wall leap" and thats really all you do the rest of the game. That clumsy stupid looking glitchy little move that, of course, suddenly requires you to decide when to grip.

Sands of time, on the other hand, only really had similar problems when you managed to climb up off the map in various places. Which the game had no problem letting you do. The platforming segments had an intended button/timing combination, but the level design and the prince's own abilities allowed a good amount of wiggle room. Just to be clear, I'm praising sands of time because alternate methods through the levels were often harder than whatever was intended, but still possible. Something the reboot and pretty much every similar ubisoft game missed entirely.

To compare to splinter cell, sands of time felt like you were actually navigating the levels, rather than searching for whatever intended path the developers had created for you (and dying horribly and completely randomly every time you deviated).

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

Yahtzee seems to not realize that in the day and age of Uber-realistic graphics, story and gameplay take the axe to the face.

Have you not seen his review of Mass Effect 2? He touts the writing of that game, saying that it's always good to see a game where writing is part of the game's core design instead of little streamers tacked on to its handlebars.

 

[CopperBoom]

when will we get more fun space game: the game news?

Never.
Just cold.

 

[ggamer2]

This article was very informative, I must say that I missed on much of the development that you describe. Personally I liked the sequel more than the original plot-wise maybe because it had more time jumping (or maybe because I just like being confused).

But there is one thing I have to admit, during the epilogue of Sands of Time, Prince showed us the only proper way of using the Dagger of Time (wink)

 

[Nomanslander]

Believable storytelling when it came to the two leads and their developing relationship in Sands of Time?...hmmm?

I don't know Yahtzee, all I remember from the first game when it came to story and romance was how much I rolled my eyes from the cliche-ness of it all...-_-

 

[wastedyouth89]

Yahtzee is right about the story. It had characters that could be liked and hated at the same time. The flaws of the prince were always visible. The game just seemed like his own attempt at personal redemption. The whole thing was really well written.

 

[veloper]

bleh. gameplay is god and PoP isn't exactly saving private ryan.

 

[fenixkane]

when will we get more fun space game: the game news?

I second that question.

 

[Blueruler182]

It really shouldn't be this hard to get a writer on one of these projects. There are a lot of freelance writers out there. Hell, the comic book industry has tons of 'em. There has to be some a-hole out there willing to write a story for a game, a good story (Me! ME!!). It just strikes me as moronic that so few games have a good story these days. It's either that or a good multiplayer that sells it, and I'd imagine a good multiplayer is much harder to make.

 

[my_ledge_ends]

Over the course of the game the Prince learns the cost of being unable to open up to people.

So, you could say that him losing his physical armor is a metaphor for him also losing/lowering his emotional guard?

Which, of course, ends up biting him in the ass, because we can't have nice things.

 

[Giandroid]

Great article! I'm pretty disappointed with stories in games as well. I will say this: There are plenty of low-budget games that have amazing stories. Lack of stories in games isn't a budget problem, it has to do with two things: The industry thinks we all have the minds of adolescent 16-year-olds that won't touch a game without breasts or explosions, and, worse, we keep proving them right. We keep buying their games, don't we? Maybe we're demanding good stories from our entertainment on forums and chat rooms or whatever, but the fact of the matter is we're still buying Gears of War and Bayonetta.

It's kind of how I feel when I watched Avatar. Good stories in movies just aren't going to be encouraged when the #1 movie of all time (Seriously?) is some explosion-laced, deep-as-a-poker-chip, blue-cat-people-porn-loaded science fiction wank. It's why I paid to see every other movie I saw that year twice. I can't take my money back from that smug asshole, but I can give twice as much money to everyone else.

This is turning out way longer than I thought it would be. Anyway, I don't give a crap about money myself, but THEY, the industry, do. They're making games with crappy stories, and we keep buying them, so why would they bother to mess with success?

 

[Citrus]

The Sands of Time has been my favourite game since the day it came. It just has so much... I dunno... soul? It tells a genuinely good story with genuinely good characters, and it does so in a way that feels so inspired.

Contrast the 2008 reboot Prince of Persia, where they tried to capture the magic of Sands of Time and wound up with remarkably mechanical characters, forced wit, forced romance. The gameplay was pretty lame too, but that's beside the point.

I don't know what it was about Sands of Time, how they managed to make everything feel so natural and flowy and genuine, but whatever it is, that's why I love it so much. Ubisoft has made three games (not counting Warrior Within) trying to recapture the elegance of Sands of Time, and they've yet to succeed. To be honest, I don't think they ever will.

 

[shiajun]

For other incredible character development arcs, check out ANY of the Gabriel Knight games. Maybe not the games 90% of the population of this forum would like, but man, can Jane Jensen write compelling stories.

 

[GodKlown]

I agree that the "hero" (or main character) in most video games is just an imposing figure that can never seem to be killed and is usually the height of perfection. He has no flaws and no shortcomings. Indiana Jones, one of the more easily recognized characters in cinema, did have an air about him that said he was a strong individual, yet he clearly faced his own shortcomings and flaws in each movie, which gave the character depth. It is pretty hard these days to appreciate a character based on his personality... people just go for what they think looks bad-ass anymore. 2D characters are more the norm these days than anything, and story arcs are getting relatively predictable. If the graphics and VO work didn't eat up the majority of the budgets for developers, maybe they would get back to what kept playing video games in the first place. Final Fantasy has really given graphics more of a front seat than story, and it's just sad in my opinion.

 

[rokkolpo]

totally agree with yathzee.

i didn't mind the restrictive combat that much though.
i still had fun trying to be creative with sand in battles (even when unnecesary).

so for me it is the perfect game. way closer to perfection than portal.

 

[Silk_Sk]

Yahtzee, will you please get off of Sot's dick? I'm sick and tired of agreeing with you.

 

[ben---neb]

Of course some people couldn't get past the first boss fight so have no idea about how the story pans out.

Yep, the first boss fight defeated me. I just kept dying! And there's not even a cheat system in place.

 

[BahamutWings]

OI Yahtzee, it was Mechner that did the screenplay for the film, and you praised his writing here and refuse to watch the film?! bit hypocritical or somesuch. Also, please punch ebert for his Videogames comments.