What Sands of Time Gets Right

[copycatalyst]

There definitely need to be more solid examples of character arcs in games. One that I am particularly sad to see a lack of (and, conversely, particularly pleased when it appears) is the "fall from grace" story. The interactive medium is a good fit for this: the player can be forced to start down a path they know is destructive, because their short term goals require it. The best example I've played is in WarCraft III, in which Arthas goes from noble prince to wretched wraith. What makes it work is that each step towards darkness that he takes makes sense for him at the time. He's not just suddenly deciding to become evil out of a lust for power; he's seizing power out of a desire to protect his people, and then being corrupted by it.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Somebody probably said this already, but I never once went slowly over the spike traps, Yahtzee. I didn't even know you could. Well, I think I remember learning that once, but I soon forgot it again. What I always did was wall run across, then at the end either do a vertical wall run (if there was a ledge I needed to grab) or else rolled 'till I was out of the spike trap. Yeah, I even did this when they had the spike logs AND spike traps in the same spot.

Going slow in a platformer is lame.

I might be inclined to agree that SoT could be the best PoP game, but I don't think the series or that game is anywhere close to being some of the best platformers around. I'd put Banjo-Kazooie, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath and Viewtiful Joe above any PoP game, and those are three off the top of my head.

I like the character arc from Chrono Trigger a lot. It's amazing that they made a SILENT protagonist feel like he changed over the course of the game. Oh, and Ramza from Final Fantasy Tactics changes from a green recruit trying to do the right thing to the Benedict Arnold of his world's history (forgotten, mistreated by his superiors and wrongly hated despite being brilliant). Meanwhile a trusted old friend becomes Machiavelli incarnate.

 

[romxxii]

Dastan (The name they came up with for the prince) barely had any emotions other than arrogance and pride, the actress they got for the princess was phenomenally awful, and never really seemed like a romantic at all.

To be honest, I truly expected Gemma Arterton to fuck up her role, and I was pleasantly surprised when she was at least registering some emotion and was really trying her best to play off of Jake Gyllenhall's Dastan, and is the only one to have any sort of character development aside from Dastan's brothers. In contrast, Dastan has virtually no development; instead of starting out as a snotty arrogant prince with Daddy issues, from the very start he's painted as this all around good guy who cares for everyone and showers his path with rose petals. And as we know, chemistry requires two to tango.

I do agree that it's an above average Hollywood explosionfest, and aside from the silly ending, more or less worked if you choose to not compare it with Sands of Time the game. If you do decide to compare it to SoT, then you'll suddenly find that while the film does have the basic framework of the Ubisoft game we all found so magical, it lacks in the general meat in terms of dialogue and Yahtzee's vaunted character arc.

OI Yahtzee, it was Mechner that did the screenplay for the film, and you praised his writing here and refuse to watch the film?!

Nope, Boaz Yakin (who wrote Dirty Dancing 2 and directed Remember the Titans) and Uninvited's Doug Miro wrote the actual screenplay. Jordan Mechner's credit is for screen story. So yeah, he was tasked with butchering his own work, but only from a high level perspective. The shitty dialogue and bland bookend catchphrase, I'm guessing we can blame the actual scriptwriters.

Seriously, why would you not use "most people think Time is like a river that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of Time, and I can tell you, they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm. You may wonder who I am, or why I say this. Come, sit down, and I will tell you a tale like none you have ever heard..."

 

[CKalvin]

Okay, first of all, what the HELL is pyjama rotoscoping!?

Secondly, when it comes to story, the only standout for me in games is the Max Payne series.
Very very engrossing narrative.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Personally for me, story and gameplay are very important things for me in game. However, if a game has a really good storyline, personally it needs some good gameplay to go along with it and make it flow throughout the experiance. The first game for me that comes to mind is Fallout. Fallout has a really long, constructive storyline with all different kinds of events, but the turn based gameplay turned(no pun intended) me off. So yeah maybe a game can have great writing and a great story, but if it doesnt have the gameplay to go along with it, then it's hard to follow and can be a less fun experiance.

I havn't played SoT so I don't know what the prince is like and all that, but personally the best character I ever played as in a game in terms of personality would be Crypto from destroy All Humans! He always had that arrogant, cocky attitude to every battle he fights but when the going gets tough, you can tell that he's shit scared. Also if a mission ever goes pear shaped hes always ready to complain about the situation and blame other people for it. Does he have an arc, well not so much an arc, but more of a rollercoaster that goes up and down.

 

[Ryokai]

Seriously, Yahtzee, what's your problem with the cake? It was a funny quote, and it's catchy, so it's an easy and fast way for fans to let others know of their support for the game. Sure, there were much funnier quotes, but theyre mostly meaningless out of context (The cube would never lie to me. Maybe I should disregard YOUR advice) and so people go with the cake.

Is it so painful to hear people expressing support for one of your favorite games with a quick and easy catchphrase?

 

[Skops]

The more I read these, the more I just see them as overly long defensive opinions on matters he doesn't really need to explain.

 

[Jhereg42]

I had an argument about this with a coworker today (though we were talking about the role of women in history and how they have been often devalued.) Okay, so this might have little to do with this on the surface, but my idea was that perhaps the history of the good and the great wasn't so bad. Much like the stereotypical hero. When I control an average hero in exceptional circumstances, it doesn't feel real or connect with me. It is like Bill Gates being the richest guy in the world. I can't connect with him, because it feels more like he was a lucky guy with the right product at the right time, in the right place. With Super-Shepards and the like, it feels more transcendant because there is no doubt that it is his efforts.

I see your point, and it's a good one.

In the original Mass Effect, Sheppard is sort of hanging out and being evaluated as a Spectre before everything falls appart. While in playing the game there is obviouly a lot of "Sheppards iron will forcing the powers that be to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses", he was still in the right place at the right time under the right circumstances to stumble into the investigation. Don't get me wrong, as space fantasy games these were fantastic. I just found it hard at times to connect to Sheppard because from the start Sheppard was a HERO. He may have been an uncaring dick or an absolute paragon of virtue, but there was never any doubt that he was going to get the job done and shove his "I Told You SO!" down the throats of the council, whether it was by letting them die or saving their lives.

There have been some good examples of character arcs that carried a lot more meaning in this thread, and universally they seem to come from an obvious flaw that the character must come to understand and overcome. It's a slightly overused plot device, but it works quite well in the context of a game.

 

[The Harkinator]

Theres a fine line between flawed and damn annoying, a flawed character can be more human and likeable but an annoying one can ruin a game.

Commander Shepherd could be 'made' to have flaws but these never really shone through in the dialogue apart from something like, 'I understand what happenned at (insert conflict here) and I know you had to make some tough choices, they weren't all the right choice but you did well etc etc...'

I'd like to see a game where a characters 'Fatal Flaw' (some dramatic features in there for you) may make them fall from grace, they will have to build themselves back up but this would inevitably fall into the cycle of redemption through saving the world but pausing along the way to remove all self-doubt they picked up on their downfall.

 

[destiaer]

As crazy as it seems, he does have some good points. While my heart lies with some certain JRPGs (which he so utterly despises), the Sands of Time is a beautifully written game, with a very organic feel to the charecters. When I think of my favourite stories, however, I really have a tie between the Grandia series, Suikoden V, and the Original Tales of Symphonia. They all have interesting charecters, and there is some serious plot twists and charecter growth in all of these, especially Suikoden, which, as usual, has over 108 charecters, who all have a distinctively real personality. the quality in that game alone is amazing, and the story is rather twisted and varied. The opening sequence alone is amazing and extremely well voiced and written. Tales of Symphonia has by far the most epic story line, spanning two discs (on the Gamecube) and has a stunning cast of charecters, and an amazingly intricate and twisted plot that trancended the JRPG story telling, which takes a tried and rather boring formula (i.e, the Chosen One plot) and bends it into something fantastic. Grandia might be one of the best JRPG series that ever hit state side, and were always ahead of the genre in gameplay, story, and a bunch of other things. Pick any of those up (there are three, including the Xtreme one, which isn't mainstream, and isn't that good. Fun to play, nonetheless) and you'll probably fall in love. Grandia 2 and 3 are the easiest to find, and both have a lot of charm, although G2 is a port from the Dreamcast to the PS2, and suffers a little for it, and G3 was made solely for the PS3, and is amazing for it.

Pardon my ranting nerdgasm there... but I do love me a good game...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Personally I found the combat in PoP: Sands of Time to be a deal breaker. I couldn't finish the game because of it. I do agree about the story and characters though.

 

[MrNelg]

Yes, this is good. Explaining why something is good is the best thing a critic can do. You always said the worse thing you can tell any artist is that their work is 100% perfect because it leaves no room for improvement; and this is a step in the right direction. The one thing I've noticed with you Ben is that you're constantly explaining what made the game fail, and NOT what made the good parts good. You did this rather well in Saints Row 2, and in your extra punctuation article on Dark Void you managed to explain well the joy of freedom and flying around. Also you did this rather superbly in an article I once read on News.com.au where you explained how in Silent Hill 2, the walk through the foggy path at the very beginning scared the pants off you.

It's now gotten to the point were I can pretty much understand what makes a bad game bad, but could you now on focus more on what makes a good game good; Or the good sections. Heck, you talked about some pretty scary moments in Project Zero 2 and the Scarecrow moments in Batman Arkem. How did THEY work?

 

[ilion]

The storyline to Homeworld on the PC back in 99 gave me the sniffles from the very start. It was total goose-pimplely game from start to finish and I recommend it to all sci-fi fans out there.

You re not alone.

 

[romxxii]

The one thing I've noticed with you Ben is that you're constantly explaining what made the game fail, and NOT what made the good parts good.

You must be new to Zero and Extra Punctuation, then. To paraphrase Yahtzee's Batman:Arkham Asylum review, you don't call a sewage technician to redecorate your bathroom, and you don't watch Yahtzee to hear about how a game is good. He understands that his fan/hatedom want to hear him bash a game.

You want to know what Yahtzee thinks makes great games? Watch his Psychonauts, Silent Hill 2, Prince of Persia SOT and Saints Row 2 reviews.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Personally I found the combat in PoP: Sands of Time to be a deal breaker. I couldn't finish the game because of it. I do agree about the story and characters though.

The combat is much worse than even Yahtzee has made it sound. It's not just simple, or bad, or frustrating, or obnoxious. It's all of those things at once with somebody spraying pepper into your eye every thirty seconds.

I hate the Sands of Time combat so much. At least they did mostly fix it in Warrior Within, and added the speed kill (should have always been there from the start since it connects platforming to combat so well) to Two Thrones.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ok, one point here I have to make. Old games in that context referred to games made in the late 80's, not 2003.

I would say that demarcation differs depending on who you ask.
For me, I would place it from 1986-1996. Just my opinion.

1986 for all of the interesting concepts we saw in the adventure/puzzle genre (ever play Douglas Adam's text-only "Bureaucracy"? It's hilarious.) as well as the obvious advancements from the end of the first video game crash to Nintendo's golden years.

After 1996, games that weren't in 3D were automatically considered inferior by certain companies (namely Sony, who pushed for an all-3D console lineup, causing problems with some third party supporters at the time) and the market was huge on 3D at that time.
The gaming industry changed after 3D took over. 2D games today are still treated as second-rate productions, rather than a potential outlet for differing styles.

Likewise, full voice acting limits the writing essentially to the first draft.
Unless you want to bring the voice actors back in for seconds...and thirds...and fourths, if you change the script.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Personally I found the combat in PoP: Sands of Time to be a deal breaker. I couldn't finish the game because of it. I do agree about the story and characters though.

The combat is much worse than even Yahtzee has made it sound. It's not just simple, or bad, or frustrating, or obnoxious. It's all of those things at once with somebody spraying pepper into your eye every thirty seconds.

I hate the Sands of Time combat so much. At least they did mostly fix it in Warrior Within, and added the speed kill (should have always been there from the start since it connects platforming to combat so well) to Two Thrones.

I know, I've played it. Only Sands of Time mind, I don't like playing sequels before finishing the ones before and as I already stated I never got through Sands of Time. No, I only got as far as this one open ballroom like place where I was assaulted by a horde of those staff wielding guys who promptly pummelled my ass into the floor. ...repeatedly. And having Farah (or whatever her name was) screaming at me for help every once in a while didn't help either. "Um I'm a little busy!!"

 

[jtesauro]

Ok, one point here I have to make. Old games in that context referred to games made in the late 80's, not 2003.

I would say that demarcation differs depending on who you ask.
For me, I would place it from 1986-1996. Just my opinion.

1986 for all of the interesting concepts we saw in the adventure/puzzle genre (ever play Douglas Adam's text-only "Bureaucracy"? It's hilarious.) as well as the obvious advancements from the end of the first video game crash to Nintendo's golden years.

After 1996, games that weren't in 3D were automatically considered inferior by certain companies (namely Sony, who pushed for an all-3D console lineup, causing problems with some third party supporters at the time) and the market was huge on 3D at that time.
The gaming industry changed after 3D took over. 2D games today are still treated as second-rate productions, rather than a potential outlet for differing styles.

Likewise, full voice acting limits the writing essentially to the first draft.
Unless you want to bring the voice actors back in for seconds...and thirds...and fourths, if you change the script.

Your point about voice acting in these games is interesting to me, because as much as I like it, it's not the sort of thing I'm married to. I heard recently for example that The Old Republic was originally supposed to be a partially voiced game more in the vein of Dragon Age: Origins, but that everyone liked a fully voiced protagonist so much in Mass Effect that they said they needed to do it here too, even given the massive undertaking that would be.

Then again I can remember hearing from a random gamer on my site months ago, we talked about the same thing, and the fact that DA WASN'T fully voiced really turned him off after having liked it in Mass Effect.

So as much as it can restrict rewrites and make more work, I don't think it's just the studios trying to be difficult or snub anything else, it seems to be something that people enjoy now.

And heck, it's been then another zelda game...