Tendo City

Quote:I love Fire Emblem, probably much more than even you do. But I wouldn't call the the story "great". It's good for a game.

Great by game story standards, especially for portables. Probably just good if you go beyond that.

Quote:Reading the length of an entire novel would be a pain, but mainly because of how stressful it is for the eyes to read on a tv or pc screen.

But it's not just pages of text... I've never played a game that was just reading text the whole time just like how I have never played a game which had absolutely no gameplay and all cutscences (that is, a game identically done to a movie). You adapt. For books, the results are as I have said: mixed with things from films and other inspirations and put into games like Beneath a Steel Sky (futuristic game -- Blade Runner/cyberworld style), The Longest Journey (high fantasy and science fiction), Grim Fandango (film noir), Torment (ah, hard to catergorize... fantasy I guess, but that does not do it justice.), etc.

Quote:I've explained it at least a dozen times in this thread. You must be dyslexic. That's the only explanation I can think of.

No. You have repeated that line over and over. You have not gone into detail about why you believe that opinion is correct for Baldur's Gate. Not here anyway... if you have before you could link that... but here, you have not. Just saying "it has a badly done story because of this and that reasons" and then not explaining WHY is not making a good case for your position.

That is, I want details. You can't say you have provided them in this thread. In one of my posts I gave more details about how I believe the story to be structured and presented... what I wanted was your counter-position.

Quote:Brian. Seriously. You are wrong. You've proven to me that you don't know anything about stories aside from the fact that you like some of them. You don't understand pacing, execution, or the narrative form in general. That's okay, you've never studied any of this. But continuing to talk as if you do know anything about this is getting very boring.

We are talking about games, not literature. I was talking about games. So no, I was not wrong, not unless you have specific proof of past computer games in the RPG genre that sufficiently prove your point... there probably was SOMETHING, but Fallout and Baldur's Gate set new standards in the genre in every way.

Quote:Well you can't tell the difference between great story-telling and not-so-great story-telling, so that comes as no surprise. Just like how many people can't tell the difference between Once Upon A Time In The West and Tombstone. Or how many people can't tell the difference between Crash and Mario.

Look, Grim Fandango didn't come out of nowhere. That guy had previously made other games and was influenced by other stuff Lucasarts had made. I think it'd be appropriate then to mention some of their greats as likely influences... it has Lucasarts humor, Lucasarts puzzles, Lucasarts style, Lucasarts-quality voice acting... what could you say was different? Just a couple of things: the setting, the controls (direct and with the head-look-at-item thing), and the fact that it was more serious than most LA adventures (though not the first... see Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis...)

In this case, the main designer of Grim was Tim Schaefer. He made Full Throttle and Maniac Mansion 2: Day of the Tentacle too. I haven't played most of Full Throttle. As for DOTT, it's a good game but not great, IMO. I've never quite liked it as much as its reputation says... but it is pretty good. Anyway, he also worked on a bunch of other LA adventure games. This suggests that the ideas didn't just pop out of nowhere for Grim so other games from them definitely are a legitimate comparison for storytelling... I know I at least have always felt that LucasArts adventure games have a consistent style in many ways, and storytelling really is one of them. Grim Fandango is not excluded from this. Now, comparing it to other publishers and sure there are differences, but within Lucasarts... they have a consistent style. You're trying to denigrate their other games for some strange reason, and I am certain that there is nothing substantial to back up the claims.

For instance, overall among adventure fans if you were to ask people their favorite LucasArts adventures, three games show up more than the rest. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Sam & Max, and Grim Fandango. All great, all different, and yet all with quite noticable similarites... I don't see how you can deny this.

Oh, and I've never (seen?) either of those (movies?). Westerns aren't my thing.

Quote:Your rebuttals keep on getting better and better, Brian. How you saw that as a response to my post is beyond my comprehension. You said that BG tells a great story, while it does not. You did not address any of my points. Not one. You're just mad because deep down inside you know that what I said about you being one of those immature gaming nerds is true.

Commenting decisively like that on games you have never played or have barely played is the height of arrogance. Given you though, it's exactly what I expect, so a sweeping generalization like that is right on target for your standards. It's stupid, and utterly wrong, but hey, that doesn't matter as long as OB1 believes it!

In this case, you had one "point": no PC RPG has a real narrative. We'll start with the obvious that I have stated fifteen times now: you fail to define your terms or give any backing for your statements! No real narrative? What do you mean? What games or instances in games do you have as examples to prove this? Without backing this is exactly like your other "points" about the methods and execution of storytelling: useless and completely unsupported.

Of course the 'game backing' aspect might be hard for you, given your clear lack of experience with the genre. But you could at least try...

Quote:Great by game story standards, especially for portables. Probably just good if you go beyond that.

It would never be good as it is if it were a book or movie or tv series.

Quote:But it's not just pages of text... I've never played a game that was just reading text the whole time just like how I have never played a game which had absolutely no gameplay and all cutscences (that is, a game identically done to a movie). You adapt. For books, the results are as I have said: mixed with things from films and other inspirations and put into games like Beneath a Steel Sky (futuristic game -- Blade Runner/cyberworld style), The Longest Journey (high fantasy and science fiction), Grim Fandango (film noir), Torment (ah, hard to catergorize... fantasy I guess, but that does not do it justice.), etc.

I was referring to you saying that books can be duplicated in games just as easily and effectively as movies.

Quote:No. You have repeated that line over and over. You have not gone into detail about why you believe that opinion is correct for Baldur's Gate. Not here anyway... if you have before you could link that... but here, you have not. Just saying "it has a badly done story because of this and that reasons" and then not explaining WHY is not making a good case for your position.

That is, I want details. You can't say you have provided them in this thread. In one of my posts I gave more details about how I believe the story to be structured and presented... what I wanted was your counter-position.

It's the exact same reason I gave for Metroid Prime! BG does tell more story than Prime does, but much of it is told in a very poor fashion by story-telling standards.

Quote:We are talking about games, not literature. I was talking about games.

Ah-HA! This is precisely what I was talking about. You, and most gamers out there, always use the excuse "they're just games, not literary pieces of art" whenever someone criticizes the poor form of current story-telling methods in games. People like you are so content in your current opinions of video games that you refuse to let the medium grow as a legitimate form of art. You may deny that but that's precisely what you do. Like Tim Rogers wrote in his essay about Metal Gear Solid 2's themes, people like you defend games and want your friends and family to take them more seriously, but at the same time don't want to let the medium grow into an actual respectable art form, and don't want to look at the problems with games today. The current way game stories are told is not going to legitimize the medium, and there are reasons for that aside from "mainstream is dumb". You can choose to continue to be thick-headed or you can choose to open your eyes and realize these facts. Knowing you, however, gives me very little hope in that respect.

Quote:So no, I was not wrong, not unless you have specific proof of past computer games in the RPG genre that sufficiently prove your point... there probably was SOMETHING, but Fallout and Baldur's Gate set new standards in the genre in every way.

Yes, I'm sure they did. But that's not enough any more.

Quote:Look, Grim Fandango didn't come out of nowhere. That guy had previously made other games and was influenced by other stuff Lucasarts had made. I think it'd be appropriate then to mention some of their greats as likely influences... it has Lucasarts humor, Lucasarts puzzles, Lucasarts style, Lucasarts-quality voice acting... what could you say was different? Just a couple of things: the setting, the controls (direct and with the head-look-at-item thing), and the fact that it was more serious than most LA adventures (though not the first... see Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis...)

I fail to see your point. So something can't be great if it "didn't come out of nowhere", whatever that means? Are you trying to say that something cannot be great if it evolved from previous concepts over time, and that different things inspired it and led to what it became? So I guess that means that the works or Akira Kurosawa should not be considered as great as they are because he was greatly inspired by John Ford, Dostoevsky, and Shakespeare, right? I love your logic.

Quote:In this case, the main designer of Grim was Tim Schaefer. He made Full Throttle and Maniac Mansion 2: Day of the Tentacle too. I haven't played most of Full Throttle. As for DOTT, it's a good game but not great, IMO. I've never quite liked it as much as its reputation says... but it is pretty good. Anyway, he also worked on a bunch of other LA adventure games. This suggests that the ideas didn't just pop out of nowhere for Grim so other games from them definitely are a legitimate comparison for storytelling... I know I at least have always felt that LucasArts adventure games have a consistent style in many ways, and storytelling really is one of them. Grim Fandango is not excluded from this. Now, comparing it to other publishers and sure there are differences, but within Lucasarts... they have a consistent style. You're trying to denigrate their other games for some strange reason, and I am certain that there is nothing substantial to back up the claims.

Where have I even mentioned Lucasarts' other adventure games in this discussion? I said that Grim Fandango is above the heap, not that it's only good because everything else is crap. You have a very strange way of looking at things.

Quote:For instance, overall among adventure fans if you were to ask people their favorite LucasArts adventures, three games show up more than the rest. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Sam & Max, and Grim Fandango. All great, all different, and yet all with quite noticable similarites... I don't see how you can deny this.

And they're talking mainly from a gameplay perspective. Grim Fandango sets itself apart from all of those other adventure games because of how extremely well it tells a story, and does so only like a game could. Sam and Max and Indy are terrific games, and I never said anything bad about them (according to you if I say that pumpkin pie is my favorite pie that means that I despise apple pie... great logic!), but Grim Fandango rise far above all of them on an artistic and narrative level.

Quote:Oh, and I've never (seen?) either of those (movies?). Westerns aren't my thing.

That's a pity. Some of the greatest movies ever made are Westerns. If you've never seen a Sergio Leone or John Ford movie before you haven't seen a true Western.

Quote:Commenting decisively like that on games you have never played or have barely played is the height of arrogance. Given you though, it's exactly what I expect, so a sweeping generalization like that is right on target for your standards. It's stupid, and utterly wrong, but hey, that doesn't matter as long as OB1 believes it!

So you're saying that the Baldur's Gate series is just a really bad example of how stories are told in PC RPGs and that I shouldn't look to them when I speak of the genre?

Quote:In this case, you had one "point": no PC RPG has a real narrative. We'll start with the obvious that I have stated fifteen times now: you fail to define your terms or give any backing for your statements! No real narrative? What do you mean? What games or instances in games do you have as examples to prove this? Without backing this is exactly like your other "points" about the methods and execution of storytelling: useless and completely unsupported.

Of course the 'game backing' aspect might be hard for you, given your clear lack of experience with the genre. But you could at least try...

I've already explained myself. Dozens of times. I've explained how reading scrolls and having conversations with townspeople are not good, effective ways of narration and that if you bring these games up to the standards of other story-telling mediums like books and movies, they would be laughed at and never be taken seriously. There are few video games that have actually been able to tell stories very effectively, among the best being MGS2 and ICO, though they approach story-telling in very different ways. I've explained in detail how each game has shattered video game conventions and raised them up to a level where they could actually be compared to respectable books and movies, and that they are the future of gaming. ICO is the best example, as it tells a story so perfectly and in a way that only a video game could do. And there are only a couple of lines of understandable dialogue in the entire game. The story is told through visuals and emotion, something that you have to play to understand. It's easily the most moving game I have ever played.

Quote:It would never be good as it is if it were a book or movie or tv series.

Maybe not straight as it is, but it'd make a fine book if it was expanded on some.

Quote:I was referring to you saying that books can be duplicated in games just as easily and effectively as movies.

But my main statement was that both are better when adapted and not taken straight... maybe games can be more directly closer to movies most of the time, but if you look at some genres you see strong influences by books as well. For something like MGS obviously the movie influence is very strong, and maybe there aren't games quite as strongly tied to books, but I've mentioned a few that are somewhat close and anyway overall MGS probably is not the future of gaming. Too non-interactive.

Quote:And they're talking mainly from a gameplay perspective. Grim Fandango sets itself apart from all of those other adventure games because of how extremely well it tells a story, and does so only like a game could. Sam and Max and Indy are terrific games, and I never said anything bad about them (according to you if I say that pumpkin pie is my favorite pie that means that I despise apple pie... great logic!), but Grim Fandango rise far above all of them on an artistic and narrative level.

They are different, but about equal in the effectiveness of doing what they set out to do. Sam & Max tries to be a comic book-inspired game. It succeeds brilliantly. Indy Fate tries to be like a new Indy movie. Again, it succeeds brilliantly. And Grim Fandango tries to be film noir. I guess the difference there is that the thing Grim is trying to be is a more complex thing, but that should not take much away from the effectiveness of the other games at succeeding at doing what they set out to do...

Quote:Where have I even mentioned Lucasarts' other adventure games in this discussion? I said that Grim Fandango is above the heap, not that it's only good because everything else is crap. You have a very strange way of looking at things.

It seemed like you were trying to say that Grim was head and shoulders above the rest and that the other LA adventure games were irrelevant and when I tried to mention them you dismissively said that Grim was way better. You seem to retreat a bit from that in this post, which is good... I was just trying to make the point that if you talk about how well Grim does things you have to talk about LA's style in general because of how consistent it is, despite differences between games.

Quote:Yes, I'm sure they did. But that's not enough any more.

First, we are not talking about high literature. We are talking about fantasy literature. Now, I love to read fantasy books, but I'll certainly admit that they generally don't try to be great literature. And I'd say that BG is a perfectly good fantasy work, the equal of most of the books in that class. I will also say that expectations for the majority of these games to go far beyond that is a false hope because in the majority people aren't as intrested in that. Simple stories are popular because not everyone appreciates complexity. This is why Planescape: Torment failed relative to Baldur's Gate: BG is comfortable for fantasy fans. It's about what you'd expect from fantasy. Torment is not. It does more, and tries very deliberately to be different. And for this, it did not sell anywhere nearly as well at retail and did not get even a spiritual successor.

Quote:Ah-HA! This is precisely what I was talking about. You, and most gamers out there, always use the excuse "they're just games, not literary pieces of art" whenever someone criticizes the poor form of current story-telling methods in games. People like you are so content in your current opinions of video games that you refuse to let the medium grow as a legitimate form of art. You may deny that but that's precisely what you do. Like Tim Rogers wrote in his essay about Metal Gear Solid 2's themes, people like you defend games and want your friends and family to take them more seriously, but at the same time don't want to let the medium grow into an actual respectable art form, and don't want to look at the problems with games today. The current way game stories are told is not going to legitimize the medium, and there are reasons for that aside from "mainstream is dumb". You can choose to continue to be thick-headed or you can choose to open your eyes and realize these facts. Knowing you, however, gives me very little hope in that respect.

See my previous response. Then... what is this ideal that games should try to match? Where do things so far outclass them? It is not among many of the direct influences from other media formats into games, that's for sure -- comic book games aren't hugely less intelligent than the comic books overall, action-movie games the same, general fantasy games too... sci-fi? Games may be behind for hard sci-fi, but there are some pretty good sci-fi titles out there. But maybe hard sci-fi is something games should explore more...

I guess where the difference is is that games have less of the top layer -- the ones that do make you think more. There are some movies and books like that, but there are fewer games. However, you are making sweeping statements about games being behind that aren't really accurate when you look at most of the material that is popular in the movie or book worlds and that games would be taking as their influences.

Still. Could games use more games that go beyond? We have some, but not as large a percent as in other media formats that must be admitted... so yes, they should. But that won't happen until those games start selling well, and that is often just not really the case! At best the ones I can think that come even close of sell decently; often it is worse. (see Torment, primarially, though stuff like The Longest Journey would also qualify... I'd mention Ico, but I have no idea how that sold...)

MGS2? They caught people on the action and the predecessors which were different, so that's a special case. And people disliked it, as you have said, and didn't understand.

Quote:That's a pity. Some of the greatest movies ever made are Westerns. If you've never seen a Sergio Leone or John Ford movie before you haven't seen a true Western.

*shrugs indifferently*

Quote:I've already explained myself. Dozens of times. I've explained how reading scrolls and having conversations with townspeople are not good, effective ways of narration and that if you bring these games up to the standards of other story-telling mediums like books and movies, they would be laughed at and never be taken seriously. There are few video games that have actually been able to tell stories very effectively, among the best being MGS2 and ICO, though they approach story-telling in very different ways. I've explained in detail how each game has shattered video game conventions and raised them up to a level where they could actually be compared to respectable books and movies, and that they are the future of gaming. ICO is the best example, as it tells a story so perfectly and in a way that only a video game could do. And there are only a couple of lines of understandable dialogue in the entire game. The story is told through visuals and emotion, something that you have to play to understand. It's easily the most moving game I have ever played.

I can't understand anything wrong with telling your story in the majority thorough conversation. It's a very standard way of storytelling in movies and books, so of course it should translate over to games! This complaint of yours is quite mystifying to me... BG tells its story just as well as anything in the category of books that it's trying to copy. Is that the most intelligent kind of books? As I have said, no. But I at least enjoy reading them, so playing a game that acts out the same way is great. It's almost as close as you can get to D&D in a game... or at least it was when it came out. BGII of course eclipsed BGI is almost every single way.

Quote:Maybe not straight as it is, but it'd make a fine book if it was expanded on some.

The story isn't that interesting.

Quote:But my main statement was that both are better when adapted and not taken straight... maybe games can be more directly closer to movies most of the time, but if you look at some genres you see strong influences by books as well.

Of course, as I've already stated Kojima himself was heavily influenced by the books of Kobo Abe (in particular the novel "Kangaroo Notebook"). Anything, from books, movies, nature, and of course life itself can heavily influence any artistic venture. That wasn't my point. My point was that movies can actually be put into games and blended with the gameplay in a way that books cannot.

Quote:For something like MGS obviously the movie influence is very strong, and maybe there aren't games quite as strongly tied to books, but I've mentioned a few that are somewhat close and anyway overall MGS probably is not the future of gaming. Too non-interactive.

You've obviously never played any of the MGS games for very long, or at the very least failed to understand them. Even if you skipped all of the cut scenes in MGS2, for example, the most significant themes and ideas that Hideo Kojima wanted to get across are realized. To explain any further would completely spoil the game for you, but believe me when I say that the game is not just in the cinemas. This is not Xenosaga, where the cinemas were made in a way that the entire story could be understood even if there was no gameplay. No, the gameplay of MGS2 is vital to the story. The same goes for MGS1, but not as much as MGS2.

Quote:They are different, but about equal in the effectiveness of doing what they set out to do. Sam & Max tries to be a comic book-inspired game. It succeeds brilliantly. Indy Fate tries to be like a new Indy movie. Again, it succeeds brilliantly. And Grim Fandango tries to be film noir. I guess the difference there is that the thing Grim is trying to be is a more complex thing, but that should not take much away from the effectiveness of the other games at succeeding at doing what they set out to do...

Film noir is not more complex than comic books or serial adventure movies. It's a great mistake to believe that. Those are just genres, neither being inherintly more complex than the other. Grim Fandango isn't successful because it tries to do film noir (which it only partially does, it's really not a whole lot like the genre as you may believe), it's successful because it blends conventions from video games and movies exceedingly well and presents its story like no other pc adventure game I've played. I'm not going to get into specific artistic and technical details. You either see that or you don't. That's okay that you don't care for these sorts of things. Like I said, Once Upon A Time In The West vs. Tombstone.

Quote:It seemed like you were trying to say that Grim was head and shoulders above the rest and that the other LA adventure games were irrelevant and when I tried to mention them you dismissively said that Grim was way better. You seem to retreat a bit from that in this post, which is good... I was just trying to make the point that if you talk about how well Grim does things you have to talk about LA's style in general because of how consistent it is, despite differences between games.

I never retreated from anything, I merely stated my opinion more clearly for you, so it was your own assumptions that retreated. On a gameplay level I prefer other adventure games, but on an artistic level (not just in terms of visuals, but on a literary level as well) it is indeed head and shoulders above the rest. It is a shining example of how to tell a story in a video game.

Quote:First, we are not talking about high literature. We are talking about fantasy literature. Now, I love to read fantasy books, but I'll certainly admit that they generally don't try to be great literature. And I'd say that BG is a perfectly good fantasy work, the equal of most of the books in that class. I will also say that expectations for the majority of these games to go far beyond that is a false hope because in the majority people aren't as intrested in that. Simple stories are popular because not everyone appreciates complexity. This is why Planescape: Torment failed relative to Baldur's Gate: BG is comfortable for fantasy fans. It's about what you'd expect from fantasy. Torment is not. It does more, and tries very deliberately to be different. And for this, it did not sell anywhere nearly as well at retail and did not get even a spiritual successor.

Fantasy literature can be "high" literature. Good literature is good literature, simple as that. You can enjoy something without it being exceptionally good. Perhaps that is what you're insecure of. There's nothing wrong with you enjoying your fantasy books, after all everything is subjective, right? But there are certain standards that art is generally judged by. It's not perfect, but it is the best way of somewhat objectively providing what is great and what is not.

Quote:See my previous response. Then... what is this ideal that games should try to match? Where do things so far outclass them? It is not among many of the direct influences from other media formats into games, that's for sure -- comic book games aren't hugely less intelligent than the comic books overall

That is actually not true. It's not impossible, but I've yet to see a "comic book game" with the level of quality and intelligence as "Watchmen" or "Sandman".

Quote:, action-movie games the same, general fantasy games too... sci-fi? Games may be behind for hard sci-fi, but there are some pretty good sci-fi titles out there. But maybe hard sci-fi is something games should explore more...

I guess where the difference is is that games have less of the top layer -- the ones that do make you think more. There are some movies and books like that, but there are fewer games. However, you are making sweeping statements about games being behind that aren't really accurate when you look at most of the material that is popular in the movie or book worlds and that games would be taking as their influences.

Still. Could games use more games that go beyond? We have some, but not as large a percent as in other media formats that must be admitted... so yes, they should. But that won't happen until those games start selling well, and that is often just not really the case! At best the ones I can think that come even close of sell decently; often it is worse. (see Torment, primarially, though stuff like The Longest Journey would also qualify... I'd mention Ico, but I have no idea how that sold...)

I'm not suggesting that all games should become Citizen Kane. No, we need our simple and entertaining stories. I'm talking about method and execution. Most games do not execute their stories very well, and that is why they are not taken seriously by the mainstream. It may take a bunch more ICOs and MGS2s in order for gaming to gain that respect, but not everything has to be complex. The stories just need to be told well, and currently very few of them do that.

And ICO sold pretty poorly, even though it got major critical acclaim and just about everyone who actually played it for a certain amount of time fell in love with it.

Quote:MGS2? They caught people on the action and the predecessors which were different, so that's a special case. And people disliked it, as you have said, and didn't understand.

They didn't understand it because they refused to believe that games can be as strong pieces of art and story as the best movies and books. But MGS2 is a special case since its goal was to get a certain reaction out of gamers, most of whom were flat-out baffled and/or offended by it. But saying any more would spoil it for you...

Quote:*shrugs indifferently*

If you like movies you owe it to yourself to see Once Upon A Time In The West.

Quote: can't understand anything wrong with telling your story in the majority thorough conversation.

You see, that's my point. You just don't understand. You don't understand what makes a good book or a good movie, and I don't fault you for that. It's when you act like you do know what you're talking about that I have a problem with.

Quote:It's a very standard way of storytelling in movies and books, so of course it should translate over to games! This complaint of yours is quite mystifying to me... BG tells its story just as well as anything in the category of books that it's trying to copy. Is that the most intelligent kind of books? As I have said, no. But I at least enjoy reading them, so playing a game that acts out the same way is great. It's almost as close as you can get to D&D in a game... or at least it was when it came out. BGII of course eclipsed BGI is almost every single way.

No books tell stories completely through lines of dialogue. If it were all just raw dialogue you would have nothing. In movies you can get away with that because the visuals do the narrating. It would not work if it were just two people statically standing in front of each other and exchanging dialogue.

Quote:No books tell stories completely through lines of dialogue. If it were all just raw dialogue you would have nothing. In movies you can get away with that because the visuals do the narrating. It would not work if it were just two people statically standing in front of each other and exchanging dialogue.

First, games have visuals too. Sure, not real-life-quality, but they do. Like the sets in a film or the surrounding descriptive words in a book they describe the scene. In some games words themselves are also used -- see adventure games and their 'Look' commands, or the textual descriptions you will sometimes find in RPGs (in or before conversations). So you are trying to make a distinction here that does not really exist. Between the images and the words (that weren't supposed to be dialogue), I'd say that conversations in games can be every bit the equal of conversations in books or movies. So no, I am not going to just submit to the idea that because you say so it is So like you essentially say in the reply before that one.

Quote:I'm not suggesting that all games should become Citizen Kane. No, we need our simple and entertaining stories. I'm talking about method and execution. Most games do not execute their stories very well, and that is why they are not taken seriously by the mainstream. It may take a bunch more ICOs and MGS2s in order for gaming to gain that respect, but not everything has to be complex. The stories just need to be told well, and currently very few of them do that.

And ICO sold pretty poorly, even though it got major critical acclaim and just about everyone who actually played it for a certain amount of time fell in love with it.

Ico sold poorly... yeah, thought it might have, helps prove that point of mine. :)

And you ignore my point about other media formats, which was the whole focus of those paragraphs (and the ones before them)!

Quote:That is actually not true. It's not impossible, but I've yet to see a "comic book game" with the level of quality and intelligence as "Watchmen" or "Sandman".

I wouldn't know because I haven't played all that many comic book games and have read probably even fewer real comic books... maybe it's not true, but for the ones that do come over it seems like they usually try to convert it decently.

Oh, and it probably shouldn't surprise you that I've never heard of those comic books. :)

Quote:Fantasy literature can be "high" literature. Good literature is good literature, simple as that. You can enjoy something without it being exceptionally good. Perhaps that is what you're insecure of. There's nothing wrong with you enjoying your fantasy books, after all everything is subjective, right? But there are certain standards that art is generally judged by. It's not perfect, but it is the best way of somewhat objectively providing what is great and what is not.

So how about a response to the point I was making? You almost completely dodge the issue...

Quote:I never retreated from anything, I merely stated my opinion more clearly for you, so it was your own assumptions that retreated. On a gameplay level I prefer other adventure games, but on an artistic level (not just in terms of visuals, but on a literary level as well) it is indeed head and shoulders above the rest. It is a shining example of how to tell a story in a video game.

You state things in very certain terms that leaves little room for assumptions.

And I found Grim's gameplay fine... different from other adventure games I had played, mostly (I had played some where you controlled the character with the arrow keys and typed in commands -- in this regard Grim wasn't so much breaking new ground (except for the head-look thing, that was new) as it was redefining old ideas with its control scheme), and the uniqueness was interesting. Interesting you'd say that, I'd think you would prefer it given your strongly worded statements in favor of direct controls that you'd love Grim's control scheme... if you mean other aspects of gameplay (ignoring story, setting, controls, etc), I'd say Grim plays just like most of the other LA adventures I've played.

... enough for now, I'll deal with the rest later probably...

Quote:First, games have visuals too. Sure, not real-life-quality, but they do. Like the sets in a film or the surrounding descriptive words in a book they describe the scene. In some games words themselves are also used -- see adventure games and their 'Look' commands, or the textual descriptions you will sometimes find in RPGs (in or before conversations). So you are trying to make a distinction here that does not really exist. Between the images and the words (that weren't supposed to be dialogue), I'd say that conversations in games can be every bit the equal of conversations in books or movies. So no, I am not going to just submit to the idea that because you say so it is So like you essentially say in the reply before that one.

I was hoping that you would reply like this. :)

Yes indeed, video games are a visual medium! And because of that, you need to present stories visually! In something like Reservoir Dogs you have very long scenes just with people sitting around talking to each other, and it does it very effectively. Just like Baldur's Gate! However--and I stress that you pay the utmost attention right here--in Reservoir Dogs we get riveting performances from the cast. It's not just static figures with word balloons over their heads, it's several fine actors delivering their dialogue (i.e. presenting it). It is the execution of the dialogue that makes the movie so good, not just the dialogue itself! Without all of these elements 'Dogs would not have been a good movie. I really hope you understand what I'm saying now. I'm just trying to enlighten you on this subject, so I hope your ego doesn't get in the way of seeing that I'm right about this.

Quote:Ico sold poorly... yeah, thought it might have, helps prove that point of mine.

Your point was that games cannot tell good stories because those types of games generally don't sell well is for the most part true, I never contested that. But that very same point only proves my point since BG is a great-selling series. :)

Quote:And you ignore my point about other media formats, which was the whole focus of those paragraphs (and the ones before them)!

I actually did address those points. Please tell me what you think I didn't.

Quote:I wouldn't know because I haven't played all that many comic book games and have read probably even fewer real comic books... maybe it's not true, but for the ones that do come over it seems like they usually try to convert it decently.

Oh, and it probably shouldn't surprise you that I've never heard of those comic books.

No, it doesn't. :D There are some good humorous comic-inspired games I've played, but no serious ones.

Quote:So how about a response to the point I was making? You almost completely dodge the issue...

How did I dodge your issue? You said that there aren't many games that can compare to "high literature". I said that that wasn't the point.

Quote:You state things in very certain terms that leaves little room for assumptions.

I can't be held responsible for your wild train of thought.

Quote:And I found Grim's gameplay fine... different from other adventure games I had played, mostly (I had played some where you controlled the character with the arrow keys and typed in commands -- in this regard Grim wasn't so much breaking new ground (except for the head-look thing, that was new) as it was redefining old ideas with its control scheme), and the uniqueness was interesting. Interesting you'd say that, I'd think you would prefer it given your strongly worded statements in favor of direct controls that you'd love Grim's control scheme... if you mean other aspects of gameplay (ignoring story, setting, controls, etc), I'd say Grim plays just like most of the other LA adventures I've played.

... enough for now, I'll deal with the rest later probably...

I did enjoy the direct controls, but it doesn't have the best gameplay of all adventure games.

Quote:That is actually not true. It's not impossible, but I've yet to see a "comic book game" with the level of quality and intelligence as "Watchmen" or "Sandman".

Or comic book movies like "Unbreakable". Just thought I'd mention that. *leaves thread*

Indeed.

2001 has good story presentation. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the thread, but, seriously, it does.

Indeed.

...

What, I'm serious.

I know, but...you could be serious with, like, more words.

Quote:Your point was that games cannot tell good stories because those types of games generally don't sell well is for the most part true, I never contested that. But that very same point only proves my point since BG is a great-selling series.

It says that BG doesn't have the same kind of style and artistic quality as some other games, but as I spent quite some time saying it does not say that BG has a bad story. That is, unless you call all normal fantasy "bad stories", because as I said BG is right about the same as plenty of fantasy books I've read. Certainly most D&D books don't have vastly better stories than that game, or D&D modules, and the D&D game is what Baldur's Gate tries to be...

Oh, and nice to see you acknowledge (if not in direct words) that Torment might be different in these regards. Of course without playing it you can't say much more than that, but it's seen as different and unique for a reason.

Quote:I was hoping that you would reply like this.

Yes indeed, video games are a visual medium! And because of that, you need to present stories visually! In something like Reservoir Dogs you have very long scenes just with people sitting around talking to each other, and it does it very effectively. Just like Baldur's Gate! However--and I stress that you pay the utmost attention right here--in Reservoir Dogs we get riveting performances from the cast. It's not just static figures with word balloons over their heads, it's several fine actors delivering their dialogue (i.e. presenting it). It is the execution of the dialogue that makes the movie so good, not just the dialogue itself! Without all of these elements 'Dogs would not have been a good movie. I really hope you understand what I'm saying now. I'm just trying to enlighten you on this subject, so I hope your ego doesn't get in the way of seeing that I'm right about this.

As I've said before, for a lot of games I prefer both text AND words. I know I've said that one of my favorite features in Eternal Darkness was the adventure game-inspired "look at object and get a text description" feature. I also love how Torment has much more points to click on and get text descriptions than either BG or Icewind Dale game (all four of those titles have an extremely small number of them, while Torment has a good amount). So yes, games are a visual medium, but they are also a written one. And each medium does something the other cannot do in quite the same way (unless the text is all voiced as well, which sometimes happens and can help the game but does not make it a more visual medium because the voice is just supplementing the text).

Yes, games are not photorealistic. So as I said, you should replace that with text. That's what books do, and what good games often do as well... and there is one other aspect in BG. The character is supposed to be "you". That is, you are in the game. It's not someone else who you watch the emotions of, it's you and you are supposed to choose how to proceed... yes, it's a story so the choices are limited, but you get those choices. And you can take as much or as little feeling from the statements you read as you wish... it's all about how much you are playing the character of your main character (and using your imagination too I guess).

Quote:How did I dodge your issue? You said that there aren't many games that can compare to "high literature". I said that that wasn't the point.

... um, isn't your whole point that more games should be moving in that direction, or at least taking influences from them for their story direction? We both agreed that not all games can be that way, but you certainly seem to be saying that not nearly enough games do this and the ones that do not are deficient. And now you say that that isn't the point? You aren't consistent it seems. Hmm... okay, so you say that not all games can be "high" works. This is true. Then you say that games fail to execute their stories well. So, how should they do this better? Your implied response is that they should emulate "high" works. So they're supposed to take elements from such works but not try to be them because of their relative unpopularity? Or what... your position here is somewhat confusing.

I mean, you say method and execution must change and then all the examples that you mention of the direction to change them in seem to move them directly into the realm of higher literature. Then deny that the goal should be most games being higher literature.

Quote:I did enjoy the direct controls, but it doesn't have the best gameplay of all adventure games.

It was a pretty standard adventure game with some good puzzles, but it was the fantastic story and great setting that really made it as good as it is... that and the uniqueness of a "displayless" game -- no icons or buttons or anything on the screen, ever. It was an interesting game design decision that led to it feeling different... more cinematic or something perhaps? Of course it required you to memorize the buttons on a gamepad, but after a while you get used to that... but as I've said, that style would not be perfect for all games. It only works as well as it does there because of how well designed the game is. Monkey Island 4 worked almost that same way and didn't really get any game or immersion bounce from it, I'd say.

Quote:No, it doesn't. There are some good humorous comic-inspired games I've played, but no serious ones.

You're probably right that serious comic book stuff doesn't get into games much. The closest thing I can think of is Max Payne, and that really isn't the same...

Quote:The story isn't that interesting.

I didn't say it would be a great fantasy book remembered among the greats of the genre, you know...

Quote:Of course, as I've already stated Kojima himself was heavily influenced by the books of Kobo Abe (in particular the novel "Kangaroo Notebook"). Anything, from books, movies, nature, and of course life itself can heavily influence any artistic venture. That wasn't my point. My point was that movies can actually be put into games and blended with the gameplay in a way that books cannot.

But in doing so you certainly made it sound like books counted for far, far less... you say in another response that you can't be responsible for my imagination, but you need to go read your posts. You say things in such clear terms that it makes it really hard to imagine anything less than very strong statements... and then here you are trying to go back on them somewhat and saying that you actually meant a much less ardent reading of your statements. So why not say things that way from the start? Oh wait, right, this is OB1 we're talking about... never mind...

Quote:You've obviously never played any of the MGS games for very long, or at the very least failed to understand them. Even if you skipped all of the cut scenes in MGS2, for example, the most significant themes and ideas that Hideo Kojima wanted to get across are realized. To explain any further would completely spoil the game for you, but believe me when I say that the game is not just in the cinemas. This is not Xenosaga, where the cinemas were made in a way that the entire story could be understood even if there was no gameplay. No, the gameplay of MGS2 is vital to the story. The same goes for MGS1, but not as much as MGS2.

As I've said before, I got about halfway through MGS2. I liked it that far. If I saw the PC version of MGS2 cheap somewhere I'd probably get it. And MGS: Twin Snakes for Cube is on my list and I'll probably get it sometime. But you cannot say that that is the future of gaming. As is obvious, games are about interactivity. Watching for two thirds of your time and doing for the other third do not encourage much interactivity. So no matter how good the story and how well it is told, MGS is not the future of gaming simply because it does not involve the player, which should be the point of gaming. This is one thing where PC RPGs can be at their best... giving the player input and a true voice in the game, or telling a story so well that the player feels like they have that voice in the game. Is it always that great? Certainly not. But at least they try in many cases.

Great Rumbler Wrote:I know, but...you could be serious with, like, more words.

Okay.

Quote:It says that BG doesn't have the same kind of style and artistic quality as some other games, but as I spent quite some time saying it does not say that BG has a bad story. That is, unless you call all normal fantasy "bad stories", because as I said BG is right about the same as plenty of fantasy books I've read. Certainly most D&D books don't have vastly better stories than that game, or D&D modules, and the D&D game is what Baldur's Gate tries to be...

Oh, and nice to see you acknowledge (if not in direct words) that Torment might be different in these regards. Of course without playing it you can't say much more than that, but it's seen as different and unique for a reason.

I've only ever been referring to Baldur's Gate here. That again was your assumption.

I like plenty of fantasy stories, but again BG does not execute them well. You can like them all you want, but they're not done well at all. Not if you compare it to more respectable forms of storytelling.

Quote:As I've said before, for a lot of games I prefer both text AND words. I know I've said that one of my favorite features in Eternal Darkness was the adventure game-inspired "look at object and get a text description" feature. I also love how Torment has much more points to click on and get text descriptions than either BG or Icewind Dale game (all four of those titles have an extremely small number of them, while Torment has a good amount). So yes, games are a visual medium, but they are also a written one. And each medium does something the other cannot do in quite the same way (unless the text is all voiced as well, which sometimes happens and can help the game but does not make it a more visual medium because the voice is just supplementing the text).

Yes, games are not photorealistic. So as I said, you should replace that with text. That's what books do, and what good games often do as well... and there is one other aspect in BG. The character is supposed to be "you". That is, you are in the game. It's not someone else who you watch the emotions of, it's you and you are supposed to choose how to proceed... yes, it's a story so the choices are limited, but you get those choices. And you can take as much or as little feeling from the statements you read as you wish... it's all about how much you are playing the character of your main character (and using your imagination too I guess).

Games are a "written" medium? Wow...

Are Buster Keaton movies also "written ones" since they used text in between scenes to explain what was going on? Hmm? Again I've poked the same whole into the same exact argument you've already tried to use. Games use text not because they are books as you so claim, but rather because only recently has it been possible to use voice acting for an entire game. Just like silent films and "talkies".

Here is how your entire argument is one giant contradiction: You say that games are like books, yet it's okay that there isn't book-like presentation and narration because games are also a visual medium. Then when I bring up the point that movies don't need book-like presentation and narration because they have visuals (i.e. actors and their performances) to present the story in a way that books cannot do, you go back to saying that static people and word balloons are okay because games are like books...

... Please tell me if I've lost you already. You're in a never-ending contradictory circle. It's plain as day for me, why can't you see it? Each of your points relies on another point to support it which then relies on that first point to support it. It's like two quadriplegics trying to help each other stand.

By all means, someone chime in on this. Tell me I'm not the only one who sees this.

Quote:... um, isn't your whole point that more games should be moving in that direction, or at least taking influences from them for their story direction? We both agreed that not all games can be that way, but you certainly seem to be saying that not nearly enough games do this and the ones that do not are deficient. And now you say that that isn't the point? You aren't consistent it seems. Hmm... okay, so you say that not all games can be "high" works. This is true. Then you say that games fail to execute their stories well. So, how should they do this better? Your implied response is that they should emulate "high" works. So they're supposed to take elements from such works but not try to be them because of their relative unpopularity? Or what... your position here is somewhat confusing.

I mean, you say method and execution must change and then all the examples that you mention of the direction to change them in seem to move them directly into the realm of higher literature. Then deny that the goal should be most games being higher literature.

I gave you two example of "higher literature" that execute their stories flawlessly, but I also gave you an example of something simpler that also executes its story very well (Grim Fandango). There do need to be more "artsy" movies in order to give games the same push that film got in the 40's and 50's so that they can begin to receive some respect, but more importantly games in the other genres need to execute their stories well (that is, if they want to tell a story). That goes for low-brow comedy, action, you name it.

Quote:It was a pretty standard adventure game with some good puzzles, but it was the fantastic story and great setting that really made it as good as it is... that and the uniqueness of a "displayless" game -- no icons or buttons or anything on the screen, ever. It was an interesting game design decision that led to it feeling different... more cinematic or something perhaps? Of course it required you to memorize the buttons on a gamepad, but after a while you get used to that... but as I've said, that style would not be perfect for all games. It only works as well as it does there because of how well designed the game is. Monkey Island 4 worked almost that same way and didn't really get any game or immersion bounce from it, I'd say.

As I said, it was Fandango's terrific artistic presentation and story execution that really puts it above the rest in those terms.

Quote:You're probably right that serious comic book stuff doesn't get into games much. The closest thing I can think of is Max Payne, and that really isn't the same...

Max Payne is nothing like a comic. Not one bit. The story is more like a bad, cheap Seagal movie and those horrible "comic" panels are complete fakery.

Quote:I didn't say it would be a great fantasy book remembered among the greats of the genre, you know...

You said it would be "great". Would anyone really want to read that? Other than die-hard FE fans? No way.

Quote:But in doing so you certainly made it sound like books counted for far, far less... you say in another response that you can't be responsible for my imagination, but you need to go read your posts. You say things in such clear terms that it makes it really hard to imagine anything less than very strong statements... and then here you are trying to go back on them somewhat and saying that you actually meant a much less ardent reading of your statements. So why not say things that way from the start? Oh wait, right, this is OB1 we're talking about... never mind...

I did say that from the start! I said almost those very same words! I was basically paraphrasing right there! Of course books count far less when it comes to influencing games. You can literally translate a movie to a game, but not a book to a game. General inspiration can be found in just about anything in this world. I can get a spark of inspiration from a bee landing on my hand, but I cannot literally translate that inspiration into a game. With movies you can do that.

Quote:As I've said before, I got about halfway through MGS2. I liked it that far. If I saw the PC version of MGS2 cheap somewhere I'd probably get it. And MGS: Twin Snakes for Cube is on my list and I'll probably get it sometime. But you cannot say that that is the future of gaming. As is obvious, games are about interactivity. Watching for two thirds of your time and doing for the other third do not encourage much interactivity. So no matter how good the story and how well it is told, MGS is not the future of gaming simply because it does not involve the player, which should be the point of gaming. This is one thing where PC RPGs can be at their best... giving the player input and a true voice in the game, or telling a story so well that the player feels like they have that voice in the game. Is it always that great? Certainly not. But at least they try in many cases.

"Two thirds of the time"? Hahaha, you did not play halfway through the game. Or you're just a big fat liar.

MGS2 exactly is not the way all games are going to be like as the ratio of gameplay to cinemas is a bit off, but above all other games aside from ICO it is the greatest example of what's possible in games from a story-telling point-of-view. And I'm not just talking about the cinemas. The gameplay itself is very important to the story.

And there's still no good way of playing through a somewhat non-linear game where you have a voice in the story that actually works. Baldur's Gate is one such example. I've already explained in depth how poor it's story-telling is.

Quote:I've only ever been referring to Baldur's Gate here. That again was your assumption.

I like plenty of fantasy stories, but again BG does not execute them well. You can like them all you want, but they're not done well at all. Not if you compare it to more respectable forms of storytelling.

How much BG did you play? Not just hour count, how far into the story did you get? It's hard for me to say exactly how well BG1 does because as I'm sure I've said before I never finished that game. I've never even finished chapter three... though I've done the first two chapters about five times... I think it starts out quite well. BG2 I did play all the way through though and it's definitely better in gameplay, story, story depth, and presentation... but when I played BG1 again a month or so ago I remembered how good that game was. I really should go back to it and for once actually reach Baldur's Gate... :)

Quote:Games are a "written" medium? Wow...

Are Buster Keaton movies also "written ones" since they used text in between scenes to explain what was going on? Hmm? Again I've poked the same whole into the same exact argument you've already tried to use. Games use text not because they are books as you so claim, but rather because only recently has it been possible to use voice acting for an entire game. Just like silent films and "talkies".

Here is how your entire argument is one giant contradiction: You say that games are like books, yet it's okay that there isn't book-like presentation and narration because games are also a visual medium. Then when I bring up the point that movies don't need book-like presentation and narration because they have visuals (i.e. actors and their performances) to present the story in a way that books cannot do, you go back to saying that static people and word balloons are okay because games are like books...

... Please tell me if I've lost you already. You're in a never-ending contradictory circle. It's plain as day for me, why can't you see it? Each of your points relies on another point to support it which then relies on that first point to support it. It's like two quadriplegics trying to help each other stand.

By all means, someone chime in on this. Tell me I'm not the only one who sees this.

They are BOTH. Those two arguements support eachother because both the visual AND literary mediums are important to games.

Games are definitely a written medium as well as a visual one. Absolutely. Can you make it all spoken? Mostly yeah. But the way the text is done... it's more like a book than a movie, for the kinds of games I am thinking of. The fully voiced text in Quest for Glory IV or The Longest Journey aren't like movies, for the most part. Maybe TLJ could be compared to a serial TV series or something, but movies? Movies are short. Games are long. This is a key difference! That length means more detail, which means more influence from mediums that are longer, like books or perhaps serial TV serieses.

Yes, games benefit from being fully voiced. But as I said, I do not feel that voicing them necessarially makes them more like movies. QFGIV doesn't feel more cinematic than QFGIII because of the voicing I think... it feels different, and I really like the fact that it's voiced (adding voices is great most of the time), but.. cinematic? If I would use that term, it would be in a quite limited manner. I'd say that maybe it increases immersion into the world as the creators want it, but cinematic... when I think of that term I think of the whole game changing into a more filmlike style -- like MGS2. Not just a normal game with voices... that's maybe a better comparison to an audio book (though with obvious major differences). If most voiced games are more cinematic, it is as a side effect and not as an intended effect. The main effect is more immersion in the world (as long as the voices are good; otherwise it can hurt the game).

You are right that the main reason games have used text and not voices for everything is technical. Well, technical and time/money dependant -- we have been able to put voices in games for almost 15 years now, but only some games have tried because of priorities, money, and scale issues. A fully voiced Baldur's Gate would have taken forever to voice act and would be on like ten CDs. But still, text has had major uses in games... much, MUCH more so than the text in soundless movies, at least so far. We'll see about the future but for now, particularly on the PC, text is just about as important as visuals to a bunch of genres. And for some games (yes no recent retail ones), text is everything -- see text-based adventure games. I've tried to play a few and it can be hard because of how used I am to graphics, but Zork is still a good game... and it uses no pictures. And being able to get a text (or voiced, but it's really the same thing) description of an item or environment is a genre staple. RPGs too have lots of text in descriptions and conversation... and again even when it is voiced, it doesn't take away from the fact that the book-inspired aspect of the game is very, very significant. Possibly newer games have more influence from movies however because with better graphics we can get closer to what movies are doing, but then I could also argue that with newer games instead of taking from other things there is more of a history with games to draw from and improve on so they don't need to look to other media formats as much for their influences. ... that might be a good point, actually...

Quote:I gave you two example of "higher literature" that execute their stories flawlessly, but I also gave you an example of something simpler that also executes its story very well (Grim Fandango). There do need to be more "artsy" movies in order to give games the same push that film got in the 40's and 50's so that they can begin to receive some respect, but more importantly games in the other genres need to execute their stories well (that is, if they want to tell a story). That goes for low-brow comedy, action, you name it.

I really cannot understand why you think it's been so bad on the storytelling front for so long. I mean, I can understand the arguement that not enough games try to be "high" art as I've read enough about the topic to know it's true, but this... you don't hear many people saying that particular arguement and it seems more than a bit odd. And it's not just because I love games. I've thought about it and I don't see this massive gulf between games and books and movies that you seem to. And no, I very highly doubt that this is just because I haven't taken creative writing classes. :)

Quote:As I said, it was Fandango's terrific artistic presentation and story execution that really puts it above the rest in those terms.

I'd say The Curse of Monkey Island was close. That one's probably my second favorite LA adventure (not having played more than the demo of Sam & Max), and it's got a brilliantly executed story and world... very funny, great artwork, good story...

Quote:You said it would be "great". Would anyone really want to read that? Other than die-hard FE fans? No way.

I said great for a game (and a handheld game in particular). Overall, yeah, it wouldn't get past good. But as I said if it was going to be a book it'd be expanded on and improved (which given how much story there already is would be easier for this game than for most -- it wouldn't need as much alteration as many games would).

Quote:I did say that from the start! I said almost those very same words! I was basically paraphrasing right there! Of course books count far less when it comes to influencing games. You can literally translate a movie to a game, but not a book to a game. General inspiration can be found in just about anything in this world. I can get a spark of inspiration from a bee landing on my hand, but I cannot literally translate that inspiration into a game. With movies you can do that.

As I said above, not for older games. Non-graphical games obviously, but even graphical games for a long time (and still to a good extent today)... because of how different games are from other mediums they take influences from all of them. I wouldn't say that games have been by far most influenced by movies, because I don't think it's true...

Quote:"Two thirds of the time"? Hahaha, you did not play halfway through the game. Or you're just a big fat liar.

MGS2 exactly is not the way all games are going to be like as the ratio of gameplay to cinemas is a bit off, but above all other games aside from ICO it is the greatest example of what's possible in games from a story-telling point-of-view. And I'm not just talking about the cinemas. The gameplay itself is very important to the story.

And there's still no good way of playing through a somewhat non-linear game where you have a voice in the story that actually works. Baldur's Gate is one such example. I've already explained in depth how poor it's story-telling is.

I was exaggerating, but by the point I was at in the game it sure felt like that. :) Earlier on it's much less, but as you progress the cutscenes get longer and longer... gameplay? The gameplay is limited in how it effects the story. Most of the time you do things then watch as the really important events unfold. Now, this is often true in games, but more so in MGS2 than in most others. And it also doesn't have branching or something... like for instance Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis with its three paths that let you choose between a more puzzle-oriented, a more action-oriented, or a cooperative oriented mode with mostly puzzles but some action. And each way the story unfolds somewhat differently. Or Quest for Glory (II-IV) (or Torment, obviously!) where how you act to others in the game will affect your gameplay experience and even the ending.

Quote:How much BG did you play? Not just hour count, how far into the story did you get? It's hard for me to say exactly how well BG1 does because as I'm sure I've said before I never finished that game. I've never even finished chapter three... though I've done the first two chapters about five times... I think it starts out quite well. BG2 I did play all the way through though and it's definitely better in gameplay, story, story depth, and presentation... but when I played BG1 again a month or so ago I remembered how good that game was. I really should go back to it and for once actually reach Baldur's Gate...

I've played more of BG2 than 1, and watched my brother (who loved the series) play through a lot of both games.

Quote:They are BOTH. Those two arguements support eachother because both the visual AND literary mediums are important to games.

No, they are not both. Video games, by definition, are a visual medium. Books are not a visual medium because all of the "visuals" are in your mind. With video games that is not the case, which is why you need to narrate them like you do with movies. Books use detailed desciptions to paint images in your mind, which is why they cannot be all dialogue. When games like BG mainly use plain dialogue between static characters in word balloons, that is absolutely bad story-telling. You cannot mix and match like that! Either you don't tell the story visually and narrate it like a book, or you tell is visually like a movie! There's no good in-between method!

Quote:Games are definitely a written medium as well as a visual one. Absolutely. Can you make it all spoken? Mostly yeah. But the way the text is done... it's more like a book than a movie, for the kinds of games I am thinking of. The fully voiced text in Quest for Glory IV or The Longest Journey aren't like movies, for the most part.

Your arguments are extremely flawed. By your logic movies are also a "written medium" because there are silent films, foreign films that require subtitles, or the optional subs for the hearing impared. And we know that movies are not a "written medium", so your argument is baseless. Completely baseless.

Quote:You are right that the main reason games have used text and not voices for everything is technical. Well, technical and time/money dependant -- we have been able to put voices in games for almost 15 years now, but only some games have tried because of priorities, money, and scale issues. A fully voiced Baldur's Gate would have taken forever to voice act and would be on like ten CDs. But still, text has had major uses in games... much, MUCH more so than the text in soundless movies, at least so far.

So that's your only argument? That you can't consider movies that use subtitles or text because of quantity? Okay, so what about long anime series that require subtitles? There's more text in some series than in Baldur's Gate, so I guess that means that I have to start calling Gundam a written medium as well as a visual medium, right? Oh, I bet you're about to say "well they weren't meant to be subtitled". Ah, so what about a series that uses a made-up language and requires subtitles to understand it? I suppose you'd consider it a written medium, right?

Your logic keeps on getting better and better! I'm finding it very entertaining to see you endlessly dig yourself into holes like this.

Quote:Maybe TLJ could be compared to a serial TV series or something, but movies? Movies are short. Games are long. This is a key difference! That length means more detail, which means more influence from mediums that are longer, like books or perhaps serial TV serieses.

TV shows are just long movies. That's all they are, that's how they came about. Length is not of importance to this discussion. There are tv series that are more movie-like than some movies, so that's a useless point.

Quote:Yes, games benefit from being fully voiced. But as I said, I do not feel that voicing them necessarially makes them more like movies. QFGIV doesn't feel more cinematic than QFGIII because of the voicing I think... it feels different, and I really like the fact that it's voiced (adding voices is great most of the time), but.. cinematic? If I would use that term, it would be in a quite limited manner. I'd say that maybe it increases immersion into the world as the creators want it, but cinematic... when I think of that term I think of the whole game changing into a more filmlike style -- like MGS2. Not just a normal game with voices... that's maybe a better comparison to an audio book (though with obvious major differences). If most voiced games are more cinematic, it is as a side effect and not as an intended effect. The main effect is more immersion in the world (as long as the voices are good; otherwise it can hurt the game).

You don't understand the definition of "cinematic", that is the problem here. Not that I'm saying that those games aren't cinematic, but you really don't know why. And you cannot understand this very debate when you don't understand the basic definitions of some of the examples I am using.

Quote:We'll see about the future but for now, particularly on the PC, text is just about as important as visuals to a bunch of genres. And for some games (yes no recent retail ones), text is everything -- see text-based adventure games. I've tried to play a few and it can be hard because of how used I am to graphics, but Zork is still a good game... and it uses no pictures. And being able to get a text (or voiced, but it's really the same thing) description of an item or environment is a genre staple. RPGs too have lots of text in descriptions and conversation... and again even when it is voiced, it doesn't take away from the fact that the book-inspired aspect of the game is very, very significant. Possibly newer games have more influence from movies however because with better graphics we can get closer to what movies are doing, but then I could also argue that with newer games instead of taking from other things there is more of a history with games to draw from and improve on so they don't need to look to other media formats as much for their influences. ... that might be a good point, actually...

So what about games that use no text at all? Are they know longer written mediums? And text-based games are not video games, we've already been over this. Those are text-based games. I will not go over that debate again. You were wrong, whether you want to admit it or not. And if you try to continue that debate I will simply ignore you. You can never admit that you are wrong, no matter how much strong evidence you have in front of you (see: the PSP debate).

Quote:I really cannot understand why you think it's been so bad on the storytelling front for so long. I mean, I can understand the arguement that not enough games try to be "high" art as I've read enough about the topic to know it's true, but this... you don't hear many people saying that particular arguement and it seems more than a bit odd. And it's not just because I love games. I've thought about it and I don't see this massive gulf between games and books and movies that you seem to. And no, I very highly doubt that this is just because I haven't taken creative writing classes.

Actually it's more likely that you cannot tell the different between poor story-telling and good story-telling, no matter what the medium is. If you think that most games can stand up to most books and movies when it comes to story-telling then you're delusional beyond belief.

I love it when you edit posts to add entire paragraphs to it. Just make another post!

Quote:I'd say The Curse of Monkey Island was close. That one's probably my second favorite LA adventure (not having played more than the demo of Sam & Max), and it's got a brilliantly executed story and world... very funny, great artwork, good story...

MI3 is great, but not at the level of GF in the aspects that I mentioned.

Quote:I said great for a game (and a handheld game in particular). Overall, yeah, it wouldn't get past good. But as I said if it was going to be a book it'd be expanded on and improved (which given how much story there already is would be easier for this game than for most -- it wouldn't need as much alteration as many games would).

You see, you use that phrase "great for a game" like everyone does, which basically means "game stories suck compared to books' and movies', so it's good compared to this much lower level". Despite knowing that you said that you can't tell the difference between the quality of story-telling in games, movies, and books.

I should call you Dr. Contradicto from now on.

Quote:As I said above, not for older games.

What? That didn't make a hint of sense.

Quote:Non-graphical games obviously, but even graphical games for a long time (and still to a good extent today)... because of how different games are from other mediums they take influences from all of them. I wouldn't say that games have been by far most influenced by movies, because I don't think it's true...

Please quote me where I said that games in the past have been influenced by movies more.

Please, go ahead and try. Maybe in your search you'll figure out what I actually said.

Quote:I was exaggerating, but by the point I was at in the game it sure felt like that. Earlier on it's much less, but as you progress the cutscenes get longer and longer... gameplay? The gameplay is limited in how it effects the story. Most of the time you do things then watch as the really important events unfold. Now, this is often true in games, but more so in MGS2 than in most others. And it also doesn't have branching or something... like for instance Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis with its three paths that let you choose between a more puzzle-oriented, a more action-oriented, or a cooperative oriented mode with mostly puzzles but some action. And each way the story unfolds somewhat differently. Or Quest for Glory (II-IV) (or Torment, obviously!) where how you act to others in the game will affect your gameplay experience and even the ending.

So now linear games are no good according to you? Talk about a flip-flopper! I don't think you have a single consistent opinion on anything, you just change it to fit your current argument at the time.

Alternate paths are great when the story doesn't matter, but in the case of Metal Gear linearity is the only way to go. Having control over a story is not the meaning of interactivity. Very few games offer that, in fact. And when they do there's usually only one good story branch (see: Deus Ex games). With non-linear gameplay you have to sacrifice the story. When a game has a very strong story, non-linearity is simply not a realistic option. There's plenty of gameplay in the Metal Gear games, some of the best out there. Certainly more interaction in the actual gameplay than Baldur's Gate. Can you fool around with enemy AI for hours on end in BG? I don't think so.

Quote:I've played more of BG2 than 1, and watched my brother (who loved the series) play through a lot of both games.

Depends on what you mean by "watched". Like, you were in the room, or you were actively watcing and stuff... I was in the same room when my sister and her friend were playing through most of BG1 and BG2, but I wasn't paying close attention so it doesn't really count for much...

Quote:No, they are not both. Video games, by definition, are a visual medium. Books are not a visual medium because all of the "visuals" are in your mind. With video games that is not the case, which is why you need to narrate them like you do with movies. Books use detailed desciptions to paint images in your mind, which is why they cannot be all dialogue. When games like BG mainly use plain dialogue between static characters in word balloons, that is absolutely bad story-telling. You cannot mix and match like that! Either you don't tell the story visually and narrate it like a book, or you tell is visually like a movie! There's no good in-between method!

Baldur's Gate is not a video game. It is a computer game. There's one point of yours made irrelevant.

And as I've said, I greatly appreciate it when games use words as well as images to describe things, and really miss it in games that I think should and do not (see Syberia, for instance). Obviously you don't agree, but that is my opinion. I guess I just put more weight on these elements than you do... like, how I keep mentioning the looking at items aspect of Eternal Darkness as something I loved about that game -- did you even notice that, or care?

And my whole arguement has been that there IS an in between method and games use it. And that unlike you, I think it can be effective. It involves words, pictures, and your imagination (for games like BG where the main character is supposed to be someone you have created -- an alternate you --). It is not bad storytelling. It is just a slightly different method that uses the resources of the other mediums and combines them in a way that is perfect for this new medium.

Quote:So that's your only argument? That you can't consider movies that use subtitles or text because of quantity? Okay, so what about long anime series that require subtitles? There's more text in some series than in Baldur's Gate, so I guess that means that I have to start calling Gundam a written medium as well as a visual medium, right? Oh, I bet you're about to say "well they weren't meant to be subtitled". Ah, so what about a series that uses a made-up language and requires subtitles to understand it? I suppose you'd consider it a written medium, right?

It depends on if they were thinking of the subtitles when they made the project. If they were thinking of them as an integral part of the film, then yes, I would say that the written medium would be a definite aspect of the project. If, however, they were tacked on later to translate the original film meaning, then no, the written aspect is not central to the project in its intended state so for the case of anime it would not be written. As for your other case, the only such thing I can think of is Mel Gibson's movie The Passion, which I most certainly have not seen or read lots about so I can't say weather they made the subtitles as an integral part of the story or as an addition... but given what I do remember hearing, I think it was an addition (I seem to remember at one point hearing that Gibson was considering releasing it in Latin and Aramaic with no subtitles).

Quote:TV shows are just long movies. That's all they are, that's how they came about. Length is not of importance to this discussion. There are tv series that are more movie-like than some movies, so that's a useless point.

Length does matter... okay, it may not be the central difference, but it does matter. A game story designer spreads their story over 15 or 20 or more hours of gameplay. A movie director fits it into about two hours. This is a very different structure and a very different way of thinking... I know I've read articles before about how different making a game story really is from a film. It's not created from the same line of thought or process.

Quote:You don't understand the definition of "cinematic", that is the problem here. Not that I'm saying that those games aren't cinematic, but you really don't know why. And you cannot understand this very debate when you don't understand the basic definitions of some of the examples I am using.

And you've been so helpful in defining terms!

Quote:So what about games that use no text at all? Are they know longer written mediums? And text-based games are not video games, we've already been over this. Those are text-based games. I will not go over that debate again. You were wrong, whether you want to admit it or not. And if you try to continue that debate I will simply ignore you. You can never admit that you are wrong, no matter how much strong evidence you have in front of you (see: the PSP debate).

That "arguement" is one of the stupidest of all time because your position is so baffilingly moronic that I can't understand how any sane person could ever think such a thing... but fortunately in this case it's mostly irrelevant, for my case at least, because all of my examples have been PC games, which are computer games and not video games. :) As for you, MGS1 and 2 have also released on PC.

And all text based games have also been computer games. So that "arguement" is only brought up by you because you know that you might otherwise have to conceed a point to me... so to avoid it you don't respond to my point. I mean, it's quite clear that text-based games are computer games and text-based games (interactive novels, they have been called) are vastly more influenced by books than by movies, so you'd just about have to conceed the point... so instead you dodge it by saying they don't count. Which is moronic but what I'd expect from you.

I love how you consistently completely ignore everything I said just to get a chance to attack me...

Oh yeah, and this is still a good point.

Quote:Possibly newer games have more influence from movies however because with better graphics we can get closer to what movies are doing, but then I could also argue that with newer games instead of taking from other things there is more of a history with games to draw from and improve on so they don't need to look to other media formats as much for their influences.

Quote:Actually it's more likely that you cannot tell the different between poor story-telling and good story-telling, no matter what the medium is. If you think that most games can stand up to most books and movies when it comes to story-telling then you're delusional beyond belief.

No, I really do not think so. We just disagree, that's all.

Quote:Depends on what you mean by "watched". Like, you were in the room, or you were actively watcing and stuff... I was in the same room when my sister and her friend were playing through most of BG1 and BG2, but I wasn't paying close attention so it doesn't really count for much...

I was actively watching him be awesome in the game.

Quote:Baldur's Gate is not a video game. It is a computer game. There's one point of yours made irrelevant.

Video game does not mean console game. Console game means console game. Baldur's Gate is most certainly a video game.

Quote:And as I've said, I greatly appreciate it when games use words as well as images to describe things, and really miss it in games that I think should and do not (see Syberia, for instance). Obviously you don't agree, but that is my opinion. I guess I just put more weight on these elements than you do... like, how I keep mentioning the looking at items aspect of Eternal Darkness as something I loved about that game -- did you even notice that, or care?

When have I ever said that using words to describe things in games suck? I even love the little logs in Metroid Prime! For some reason you are bunching up everything I've said into one convenient sound byte. Written descriptions can be fine but they are no substitute for the main story-telling!

Quote:And my whole arguement has been that there IS an in between method and games use it. And that unlike you, I think it can be effective. It involves words, pictures, and your imagination (for games like BG where the main character is supposed to be someone you have created -- an alternate you --). It is not bad storytelling. It is just a slightly different method that uses the resources of the other mediums and combines them in a way that is perfect for this new medium.

If you're going to use words then you have to either have visual descriptions for them or written descriptions for them. This you do not understand.

Quote:It depends on if they were thinking of the subtitles when they made the project. If they were thinking of them as an integral part of the film, then yes, I would say that the written medium would be a definite aspect of the project. If, however, they were tacked on later to translate the original film meaning, then no, the written aspect is not central to the project in its intended state so for the case of anime it would not be written. As for your other case, the only such thing I can think of is Mel Gibson's movie The Passion, which I most certainly have not seen or read lots about so I can't say weather they made the subtitles as an integral part of the story or as an addition... but given what I do remember hearing, I think it was an addition (I seem to remember at one point hearing that Gibson was considering releasing it in Latin and Aramaic with no subtitles).

Okay, this is where your entire argument falls into pieces.

Reading subtitles--intended or not--does not make film a written medium. A visual medium is something that uses visuals as its main method of telling a story. Hearing, or reading dialogue does not determine if it's a visual medium or not. If it uses images to visually describe the people, the setting, the things, then it is by definition a visual medium. In the case of "The Passion", the only thing read in the movie is the dialogue. Everything else is "described" visually. There's no narration about the color of people's hair, what the settings look like, or the emotions expressed by the characters. That is all visually told, thus it is a visual medium! That is the definition of a visual medium! If you don't believe me go to your university tomorrow and ask any one of the film professors there.

Now, notice how that is the same exact situation as video games. There is no written description in Baldur's Gate for what the people or town look like because the description is right there in the visuals! All that is written is the dialogue between characters, and it wouldn't make a difference if all of that text was turned into voice acting. That would not change the the status of its medium!

This is also why text-based games are not technically video games, because they do not use visuals as their primary descriptor (if they use visuals at all).

Quote:Length does matter... okay, it may not be the central difference, but it does matter. A game story designer spreads their story over 15 or 20 or more hours of gameplay. A movie director fits it into about two hours. This is a very different structure and a very different way of thinking... I know I've read articles before about how different making a game story really is from a film. It's not created from the same line of thought or process.

Of course games are made differently than movies, you don't need to read an article to know that. That was never my point. My point is that you can duplicate movies into games, while you cannot duplicate books into games. Length is not a matter whatsoever, unless your goal is to make a hundred-hour RPG with footage from Star Trek II. And that was not the point either. MGS2 uses movie-like cut scenes to help tell its story, so in that case it is literally duplicating styles and methods from film into video game form. And yet it has more hours of cut scenes than your average movie. Go figure!

Quote:And you've been so helpful in defining terms!

Now you want me to give you a lecture on what it means to be "cinematic"? If you don't know anything about this then don't try to argue against it.

Quote:That "arguement" is one of the stupidest of all time because your position is so baffilingly moronic that I can't understand how any sane person could ever think such a thing... but fortunately in this case it's mostly irrelevant, for my case at least, because all of my examples have been PC games, which are computer games and not video games. As for you, MGS1 and 2 have also released on PC.

And all text based games have also been computer games. So that "arguement" is only brought up by you because you know that you might otherwise have to conceed a point to me... so to avoid it you don't respond to my point. I mean, it's quite clear that text-based games are computer games and text-based games (interactive novels, they have been called) are vastly more influenced by books than by movies, so you'd just about have to conceed the point... so instead you dodge it by saying they don't count. Which is moronic but what I'd expect from you.

Again this is an example of you not being able to make a single intelligent argument because you are completely ignorant to the definitions of the terms and examples that I am using.

I really don't care any more if you don't know what a computer game is or what a video game is, I've tried to educate you but your ego always prevents you from learning anything. And that is your problem, not mine. That is going to hurt you in life, not me. So I'm fine with it.

Quote:I love how you consistently completely ignore everything I said just to get a chance to attack me...

You keep on saying that yet you still haven't pointed out where I've been ignoring you. Yet another empty accusation.

Quote:Oh yeah, and this is still a good point.

I already invalidated that point of yours, but of course you choose to ignore it.

Quote:No, I really do not think so. We just disagree, that's all.

I'm sure you'd like to think that's the case. I actually know what I'm talking about here while you are totally ignorant to almost every part of this discussion, relying on what you think is acceptable rather than what it generally considered as so.

Quote:Again this is an example of you not being able to make a single intelligent argument because you are completely ignorant to the definitions of the terms and examples that I am using.

I really don't care any more if you don't know what a computer game is or what a video game is, I've tried to educate you but your ego always prevents you from learning anything. And that is your problem, not mine. That is going to hurt you in life, not me. So I'm fine with it.

It has nothing to do with ego or you supposedly winning and me refusing to admit it. I am not admitting you "won" because I don't think by any decent standards that you have. This is nothing like the PSP thing where I admitted something. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever by any standard to say that two games that play the same and for which the gameplay experience is overall pretty much identical are in totally different categories. That just DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE.

Anyway, I did not bring up Zork to bring back this arguement. I mentioned Zork because it is obvious that when you say "movies have always influenced games more" and I was closer to the other side, I would mention the best example possible to prove my case (just you do with MGS). And that example is, clearly, interactive fiction. If I wanted the next best thing I'd talk about early adventure games, which play similarly to interactive fiction just with graphics (King's Quest, etc). Same arguement really, as that game is pretty much a text-based adventure, just with pictures...

Quote:When have I ever said that using words to describe things in games suck? I even love the little logs in Metroid Prime! For some reason you are bunching up everything I've said into one convenient sound byte. Written descriptions can be fine but they are no substitute for the main story-telling!

I think that this is the first time I've heard you say this...

Quote:Of course games are made differently than movies, you don't need to read an article to know that. That was never my point. My point is that you can duplicate movies into games, while you cannot duplicate books into games. Length is not a matter whatsoever, unless your goal is to make a hundred-hour RPG with footage from Star Trek II. And that was not the point either. MGS2 uses movie-like cut scenes to help tell its story, so in that case it is literally duplicating styles and methods from film into video game form. And yet it has more hours of cut scenes than your average movie. Go figure!

No. Games require interaction. Thus, you cannot put a movie in a pc box and call it a game. That would actually be less interactive than reading a novel on a computer screen as you wouldn't even need to flip the pages.

You're right about MGS's influences, but my point is that because they are making something different from movies any influence they do get from them, in the majority, is not going to be straight. It is going to be mixed with many other things, including influences from books. You suggest that movies are the top influence... I don't really think so.

Quote:Now you want me to give you a lecture on what it means to be "cinematic"? If you don't know anything about this then don't try to argue against it.

I did the best I could with what I thought it meant, but if you think it's something dramatically different why not...

Quote:You keep on saying that yet you still haven't pointed out where I've been ignoring you. Yet another empty accusation.

Your attack on if text-based games were video games dodged the point I was making. That is really not relevant, as I explain above. So by not talking about the issue I raised and instead attacking me on what essentially was a non sequitor, you dodge the issue.

Quote:I already invalidated that point of yours, but of course you choose to ignore it.

Attacking a totally different point does not invalidate that.

Quote:I'm sure you'd like to think that's the case. I actually know what I'm talking about here while you are totally ignorant to almost every part of this discussion, relying on what you think is acceptable rather than what it generally considered as so.

Just no. And anyway, I'm just about as sure about you not really understanding what I mean as you seem to be with me about you. :)

Quote:If you're going to use words then you have to either have visual descriptions for them or written descriptions for them. This you do not understand.

Huh? Sure, you need some kind of description for your words. Which is why, exactly as I said, games use all the tools available to them, with the main two being visual and textual descriptions!

Quote:Okay, this is where your entire argument falls into pieces.

Reading subtitles--intended or not--does not make film a written medium. A visual medium is something that uses visuals as its main method of telling a story. Hearing, or reading dialogue does not determine if it's a visual medium or not. If it uses images to visually describe the people, the setting, the things, then it is by definition a visual medium. In the case of "The Passion", the only thing read in the movie is the dialogue. Everything else is "described" visually. There's no narration about the color of people's hair, what the settings look like, or the emotions expressed by the characters. That is all visually told, thus it is a visual medium! That is the definition of a visual medium! If you don't believe me go to your university tomorrow and ask any one of the film professors there.

Now, notice how that is the same exact situation as video games. There is no written description in Baldur's Gate for what the people or town look like because the description is right there in the visuals! All that is written is the dialogue between characters, and it wouldn't make a difference if all of that text was turned into voice acting. That would not change the the status of its medium!

This is also why text-based games are not technically video games, because they do not use visuals as their primary descriptor (if they use visuals at all).

(First, do I need to repeat that I think it is both visual and written? I think I even did it in this post... so let's just skip the fifth or so rewrite of that idea and move on. But make no mistake, that is my primary rebuttal to your thesis here that they are primarially visual.)

Actually, as I've said many times, in some of these games there ARE written description of places. And I think it's a great help, as graphics can't do everything. Baldur's Gate? It doesn't have a lot of them, but it does have some descriptions of places (some voiced in the chapter intros and stuff, some in stuff you read or conversations). So I think that your idea that games are, like films, so focused just on the visual medium is wrong. Otherwise Eternal Darkness would not have those written descriptions of items. As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).

As for Baldur's Gate, I think that there was a lost opportunity somewhat here. I would have loved to see a more adventure-game-like system (or Torment's, with more than BG but still less than an adventure game) with lots of things to click on and get better descriptions. I think that in games such things help set the tone and describe the world much more effectively than just graphics alone can. And, as I played through BGII, I noticed how dissapointingly few the places where I could click to get descriptions were (generally, points that I could in some fashion interact with). So fine, that's a flaw in the game.

Oh yeah, and one of your last points is something very close to what I said in my last few posts, you know: changing text into voice acting does not make massive changes to the way the game works or from what it's influences came from.


That final statement. Hmm... very interesting. I disagree with the fundamental assumption there that electronic games need visuals to matter. I don't think the amount of visuals in the game is relevant in any way for classification, and see no reason why they should (beyond the obvious idea of categorizing them for the kind of visuals they employ -- 2d, 3d, etc -- which is not relevant to the overall categorization I'm talking about).

:screwy:

...

And that was at both of you!

Quote:It has nothing to do with ego or you supposedly winning and me refusing to admit it. I am not admitting you "won" because I don't think by any decent standards that you have. This is nothing like the PSP thing where I admitted something. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever by any standard to say that two games that play the same and for which the gameplay experience is overall pretty much identical are in totally different categories. That just DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE.

This is completely about your ego. Even though you know very well that I was right about the PSP thing, you refused to admit that you were oh-so wrong. And why was that? EGO! I am seriously trying to educate you here and I've been trying my best to do it in a non-insulting manner, but now I know that that's impossible to do. But that's your loss. Your ignorance is your loss.

Quote:Anyway, I did not bring up Zork to bring back this arguement. I mentioned Zork because it is obvious that when you say "movies have always influenced games more" and I was closer to the other side, I would mention the best example possible to prove my case (just you do with MGS). And that example is, clearly, interactive fiction. If I wanted the next best thing I'd talk about early adventure games, which play similarly to interactive fiction just with graphics (King's Quest, etc). Same arguement really, as that game is pretty much a text-based adventure, just with pictures...

How many times are you going to make me repeat myself? I never said that movies have influenced games more! I've said that what--TEN TIMES already??! What I stated very clearly is that books can not translate into a game nearly as well as movies can.

Quote:I think that this is the first time I've heard you say this...

I said that when I first played Metroid Prime, I said that when we first had this debate, and I've said it several other times in the past. I like those log things. What I've always said is that those logs are not a good method of story-telling! They're a nice supplement, some cool background info in the game. But not as the driving force of the plot, which they are.

Quote:No. Games require interaction. Thus, you cannot put a movie in a pc box and call it a game. That would actually be less interactive than reading a novel on a computer screen as you wouldn't even need to flip the pages.

You're right about MGS's influences, but my point is that because they are making something different from movies any influence they do get from them, in the majority, is not going to be straight. It is going to be mixed with many other things, including influences from books. You suggest that movies are the top influence... I don't really think so.

That's because you don't know a thing about any of this. You are entirely ignorant to every single one of these topics. You base your "knowledge" on blind speculation and feeling and don't have one concrete opinion that is shared by any expert in these fields. You're like a punk kid who thinks he knows everything, trying to argue with someone who studies these topics full-time. It's sadly pathetic.

Of course you cannot put a movie in a box and call it a game. I never said that. I've clearly stated that you can put movies into games, not substitute the games for movies! Try that with a book and the game will most assuredly suck! Case in point: The MGS series.

Quote:I did the best I could with what I thought it meant, but if you think it's something dramatically different why not...

I could give you give you an entire semester's worth of lecturing and you'd still understand absolutely nothing. You can't even understand a single one of my sentences, so what are the chances of you understanding entire paragraphs?

Quote:Your attack on if text-based games were video games dodged the point I was making. That is really not relevant, as I explain above. So by not talking about the issue I raised and instead attacking me on what essentially was a non sequitor, you dodge the issue.

Could you be more vague then that? Quote something specifically!

Quote:Attacking a totally different point does not invalidate that.

If you actually understood the English language and knew how to decode our "paragraphs" and "sentences" you would clearly be able to see that I obliterated your "point".

Quote:Just no. And anyway, I'm just about as sure about you not really understanding what I mean as you seem to be with me about you.

I've understood just about everything you've said here, which makes this so frustrating. I understand what you're trying to get across, as incredibly idiotic as your posts are.

Quote:Huh? Sure, you need some kind of description for your words. Which is why, exactly as I said, games use all the tools available to them, with the main two being visual and textual descriptions!

Uh, no they don't! Having two static charactes and word balloons do not account for visual narration!

Quote:(First, do I need to repeat that I think it is both visual and written? I think I even did it in this post... so let's just skip the fifth or so rewrite of that idea and move on. But make no mistake, that is my primary rebuttal to your thesis here that they are primarially visual.)

Yeah, that's what that paragraph was for, Einstein. That movies are not both written and visual mediums.

Quote:Actually, as I've said many times, in some of these games there ARE written description of places. And I think it's a great help, as graphics can't do everything. Baldur's Gate? It doesn't have a lot of them, but it does have some descriptions of places (some voiced in the chapter intros and stuff, some in stuff you read or conversations). So I think that your idea that games are, like films, so focused just on the visual medium is wrong. Otherwise Eternal Darkness would not have those written descriptions of items. As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).

As for Baldur's Gate, I think that there was a lost opportunity somewhat here. I would have loved to see a more adventure-game-like system (or Torment's, with more than BG but still less than an adventure game) with lots of things to click on and get better descriptions. I think that in games such things help set the tone and describe the world much more effectively than just graphics alone can. And, as I played through BGII, I noticed how dissapointingly few the places where I could click to get descriptions were (generally, points that I could in some fashion interact with). So fine, that's a flaw in the game.

Oh yeah, and one of your last points is something very close to what I said in my last few posts, you know: changing text into voice acting does not make massive changes to the way the game works or from what it's influences came from.

You ignored all of my points! Every single one of them! Amazing.

You ignored my point about The Passion, about visuals doing the story-telling and the only text being dialogue. You completely ignored that and just reiterated your terribly ignorant points. You just repeated yourself, showing that you either did not read my post or failed to comprehend it.



Brian, as bad as this sounds, I really hope you learn your lesson in life. I hope this enormous ego and unwillingness to learn anything new and not being able to admit defeat really makes life really tough for you. I hope this because that is the only way you will ever learn. And this will hurt you, you can bet on that. You're still under the care of your parents, you've never had a job, etc. You've yet to enter the real world. When you do so, prepare to get bitchslapped, both literally and figuratively.

Quote:That final statement. Hmm... very interesting. I disagree with the fundamental assumption there that electronic games need visuals to matter. I don't think the amount of visuals in the game is relevant in any way for classification, and see no reason why they should (beyond the obvious idea of categorizing them for the kind of visuals they employ -- 2d, 3d, etc -- which is not relevant to the overall categorization I'm talking about).

Sure, electronic games can be of just about any variety. Light Bright is an electronic game! I'm talking about video games, and there is only one broad classification for them: visual medium. That is a fact. Argue it as much as you want to, you're still wrong.

With the video games thing your arguement is just on such shaky ground... beyond the fact that from the standpoint of the actual games your "point" is irrelevant, there is also the issue of what you are using to prove your case: dictionaries and the like. They don't exactly have the deepest and most accurate definitions of these things... for instance dictionary.com has no enterance for 'electronic game' by itsself (only a mention in the 'video game' entry) and 'computer game' only shows up as "a game played against a computer". Obviously that is wrong. So is it any surprise that the 'video game' entries are off as well? (that is, they are saying something that while it may be strictly correct it is not the way they work anymore. Like a computer game only being "a game played against a computer". I guess they missed the internet...)

But that isn't too important. The biggest thing is I just do not understand why you make such a big deal out of this. It makes no sense at all. All I did was support my case with a pertinent example and you fly off the handle! It's absurd! What does whether Zork is a video game or not have to do with weather it, as a game that clearly is a predecessor of current games in the genre that we have been discussing (and clearly an interactive game and not a movie or a book), was more influenced by books or by films? Yet that's your only "defence"against point. Sad.

(oh yeah, and were would you put games that make their "graphics" out of ASCII text symbols?)

Quote:How many times are you going to make me repeat myself? I never said that movies have influenced games more! I've said that what--TEN TIMES already??! What I stated very clearly is that books can not translate into a game nearly as well as movies can.

And the response is that Zork is closer to being a book than MGS is to being a movie (note your use of the word 'games'. To avoid your stupid video games "arguement" as the response.)

Quote:I am seriously trying to educate you here and I've been trying my best to do it in a non-insulting manner, but now I know that that's impossible to do. But that's your loss. Your ignorance is your loss.

No, you are not. You say "UNDERSTAND!" And when I say 'I don't quite know what you mean" you say "YOU IDIOT!!!11!" instead of defining your terms and making your arguement more understandable.

Quote:I said that when I first played Metroid Prime, I said that when we first had this debate, and I've said it several other times in the past. I like those log things. What I've always said is that those logs are not a good method of story-telling! They're a nice supplement, some cool background info in the game. But not as the driving force of the plot, which they are.

But if it had a more defined story, you'd probably be complaining because "it doesn't live up to what I expect from a Metroid game" (see Fusion), so for Nintendo it seems like a lose/lose proposition...

Quote:Of course you cannot put a movie in a box and call it a game. I never said that. I've clearly stated that you can put movies into games, not substitute the games for movies! Try that with a book and the game will most assuredly suck! Case in point: The MGS series.

Infocom. Okay, not straight books, but more than books, but if you really tried you could do something that complex in a book... it'd just require a really annoying tally sheet to keep track of details and, for some games, may not work at all... but it is pretty close to an interactive book in a box. And Infocom was the best at it.

As for films, there have been some games that try to be cinematic to the point of greatly limiting gameplay... I know that's a criticism of those Star Trek games 'Borg' and 'Klingon' (I think that was the other one), and could be levelled at 'Dragon's Lair' as well... so you can make arguements for both sides. But I'd say the interactive fiction is a bit closer.

Quote:Uh, no they don't! Having two static charactes and word balloons do not account for visual narration!

It's not the exact same thing as having live actors, but it serves the same purpose (if probably with a loss of effectiveness). For expressions, games generally either have portraits or faces that show what the person's experession is (with voice acting and stuff usually) -- see Fallout for instance, or most anime-inspired games, they try to describe it in the text, or both. Fallout for instance has portraits for the major NPCs, that animate with voice for when they talk. Quest for Glory has a portrait of who you are talking to and the face animates some as they speak. Baldur's Gate? True, it does not have that. It just has the text and the on-screen graphics. This probably does make it a bit less personal and film-like, and it means that it relies more on writing... and fortunately, in my opinion at least, they came up with good enough writing to mostly make up for it. With a game that size, I can see why they wouldn't really want to do animating portraits for all of the major NPCs... but now that I think about it it might have been nice.

Quote:You ignored my point about The Passion, about visuals doing the story-telling and the only text being dialogue.

No I did not. Here's the quote. Read more carefully (though I know you never will)!

Quote:As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).

The point is, I agreed that films are a visual medium, and (then) stated that my position was that games are a combonation of both visual and written mediums. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that they are a primarially visual medium (not purely visual though, right?). And while visuals are definitely a big part of games, I am definitely of the opinion that there is more to it than that and that things based on visual mediums (like films) are not the only big influence on games.

However, I did state (though I don't think you got or understood this point) that games do seem to be moving somewhat towards film as time passes and graphics get better. But as I said a while back, the main mitigating factor towards this is probably that games are a more mature medium now and there is less need to copy off other media formats than there may have been before...

Quote:You just repeated yourself,

If expanding on something I had maybe spent two words on before into a paragraph then I guess I am guilty, but I hadn't spent any more time than that before on how BG is lacking on text explanations of things... at least, not in THIS thread!


Hmm, noticed I missed a post of yours on the last page... :) It's more worth replying to than this latest ... post of yours ...

Quote:What? That didn't make a hint of sense.

It's referring to how older games had less or no graphics so the text-based element was more important for them.

Quote:You see, you use that phrase "great for a game" like everyone does, which basically means "game stories suck compared to books' and movies', so it's good compared to this much lower level". Despite knowing that you said that you can't tell the difference between the quality of story-telling in games, movies, and books.

I should call you Dr. Contradicto from now on.

Quote:MI3 is great, but not at the level of GF in the aspects that I mentioned.

Worse in some ways, better in others (such as humor)... GF does end up on top, and probably is more inventive with its storytelling, but though MI3 might not try quite as much it still isn't very far behind.

Quote:So now linear games are no good according to you? Talk about a flip-flopper! I don't think you have a single consistent opinion on anything, you just change it to fit your current argument at the time.

Alternate paths are great when the story doesn't matter, but in the case of Metal Gear linearity is the only way to go. Having control over a story is not the meaning of interactivity. Very few games offer that, in fact. And when they do there's usually only one good story branch (see: Deus Ex games). With non-linear gameplay you have to sacrifice the story. When a game has a very strong story, non-linearity is simply not a realistic option. There's plenty of gameplay in the Metal Gear games, some of the best out there. Certainly more interaction in the actual gameplay than Baldur's Gate. Can you fool around with enemy AI for hours on end in BG? I don't think so.

It really depends on what you mean by linearity. If you mean "I really wish that Starcraft had a branching campaign with multiple endings", well, that might be fun but I don't have a problem with games like that having a linearly unfolding story. Really, I kind of got off track... I think that both linear and non-linear stories can work depending on the case of the game. And you are right, the less linear the story then generally the weaker it is (though this depends, if it's simply a branching tree then the story can have choices and some openness and be a tight story, but you would probably argue that that isn't the most nonlinear form of game design). The point was more supposed to be about something I was reading about in a Dreamfall (The Longest Journey 2) interview I read a few days ago. There, the game's designer was saying that they were trying to have the player be in control of the game as much as possible. Even in "cutscenes" most of the time you are in control. This is because it is an interactive game and not a film, so the player should be able to do things and not just watch events unfold. Will what you do in these cases actually change how the game unfolds? Not in every case, no. But just like in Planescape: Torment, having the FEELING of control and having something to do is what counts. It doesn't matter if the story is linear if it gives you control and some degree of effect on your environment (like the example they gave of a case where you could choose to hide from or fight some soldiers)...

Here's the article link. I'd recommend it.
http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,377

Oh yeah, and Deux Ex would be a good example of a game with interactivity and choices throughout, while still maintaining a strong narrative.

Quote:With the video games thing your arguement is just on such shaky ground... beyond the fact that from the standpoint of the actual games your "point" is irrelevant, there is also the issue of what you are using to prove your case: dictionaries and the like. They don't exactly have the deepest and most accurate definitions of these things... for instance dictionary.com has no enterance for 'electronic game' by itsself (only a mention in the 'video game' entry) and 'computer game' only shows up as "a game played against a computer". Obviously that is wrong. So is it any surprise that the 'video game' entries are off as well? (that is, they are saying something that while it may be strictly correct it is not the way they work anymore. Like a computer game only being "a game played against a computer". I guess they missed the internet...)

Yes I know that regular dictionaries do not provide all of the answers. And no that is not all that I have. As you know I want to become a professional game designer, and in order to train for that I have been reading everything that I can, I've talked to people in the industry, as well as personal friends of mine who were able to afford going to school in such places as the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe, Arizona. My claims are not based on "shaky ground" as you put it, and they are not based on simple stubbornness and ignorance like yours are. These are things that I know for a fact, and I have indeed discussed this particular issue with people who's jobs it is to educate other people on the definitions, ideas, and theories of video games. The only shaky ground here in the one beneath your feet.

Quote:But that isn't too important.

It's not? Then why are you debating me for pages and pages?

Quote:The biggest thing is I just do not understand why you make such a big deal out of this. It makes no sense at all. All I did was support my case with a pertinent example and you fly off the handle! It's absurd! What does whether Zork is a video game or not have to do with weather it, as a game that clearly is a predecessor of current games in the genre that we have been discussing (and clearly an interactive game and not a movie or a book), was more influenced by books or by films? Yet that's your only "defence"against point. Sad.

(oh yeah, and were would you put games that make their "graphics" out of ASCII text symbols?)

I make no greater deal out of this than you do. Remember that there are two of us in this debate. I make a special note of this particular issue because your entire argument rests on it. Your entire shaky argument rests on untruths.

As for ASCII text symbols, that is not a huge stretch from a bunch of tiny pixels forming an image. If you manipulate those ascii images then it is a video game. I will not go over that again.

Quote:And the response is that Zork is closer to being a book than MGS is to being a movie (note your use of the word 'games'. To avoid your stupid video games "arguement" as the response.)

I don't care how much you want to deny it, but text-based games are not video games and therefore your argument is baseless. I will not go through this again.

Quote:No, you are not. You say "UNDERSTAND!" And when I say 'I don't quite know what you mean" you say "YOU IDIOT!!!11!" instead of defining your terms and making your arguement more understandable.

Have I ever called you that here? Seriously, show me where I did. And I've made myself as clear as I realistically can in a forum without actually giving you a a book-long lecture. Like I said below, you are unable to understand even these most simple explanations.

Quote:But if it had a more defined story, you'd probably be complaining because "it doesn't live up to what I expect from a Metroid game" (see Fusion), so for Nintendo it seems like a lose/lose proposition...

Fusion was linear, which is why it wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Zero Mission, however, shows that a simple story can be told while maintaining the nonlinear gameplay that Metroid is so loved for. Take the basic ideas from ZM and you'll have one awesome Metroid story.

Quote:Infocom. Okay, not straight books, but more than books, but if you really tried you could do something that complex in a book... it'd just require a really annoying tally sheet to keep track of details and, for some games, may not work at all... but it is pretty close to an interactive book in a box. And Infocom was the best at it.

As for films, there have been some games that try to be cinematic to the point of greatly limiting gameplay... I know that's a criticism of those Star Trek games 'Borg' and 'Klingon' (I think that was the other one), and could be levelled at 'Dragon's Lair' as well... so you can make arguements for both sides. But I'd say the interactive fiction is a bit closer.

Like I already said, you do not even know what the term "cinematic" means so your post is pointless. And again you've failed to understand my point. For the what, sixth time for this particular point? Amazing.

Quote:No I did not. Here's the quote. Read more carefully (though I know you never will)!

Quote:
As you say, this is something films don't do (and you have slightly different reasons, but we ended up with the same conclusion -- that no films count as being written mediums).


The point is, I agreed that films are a visual medium, and (then) stated that my position was that games are a combonation of both visual and written mediums.

Actually, that is not what you said. Let me quote you right now, in regards to movies being written mediums as well as visual mediums sometimes: "If they were thinking of them as an integral part of the film, then yes, I would say that the written medium would be a definite aspect of the project."

Your ever-changing stance and lying is making this more and more difficult for you, Brian.

Quote:Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that they are a primarially visual medium (not purely visual though, right?).

Not primarily; totally.

Quote:And while visuals are definitely a big part of games, I am definitely of the opinion that there is more to it than that and that things based on visual mediums (like films) are not the only big influence on games.

However, I did state (though I don't think you got or understood this point) that games do seem to be moving somewhat towards film as time passes and graphics get better. But as I said a while back, the main mitigating factor towards this is probably that games are a more mature medium now and there is less need to copy off other media formats than there may have been before...

Influence means nothing! How many times do I have to repeat that??! I was influenced by a home appliance when I thought up the concept for my platformer, and what does that tell you? THAT ANYTHING CAN INFLUENCE ANYTHING WHICH MEANS THAT INFLUENCE HAS NO BEARING ON THE DEFINITION AND CONDITION OF A MEDIUM!. Maybe those big bolded letters will get the point across to you this time!

That's the amazing thing about the human mind, you can become inspired or influenced by something that has very little relation to whatever that influence is placed upon! Whether games have been more influenced by books, movies, or frying pans, that is completely beside the point. You CANNOT put books directly into games and expect people to accept that. You CAN, however, put movies directly into games because games and movies are both visual mediums! And before you say "but you SEE books, so they're visual too!", books are considered to be a digital medium (that just means that the letters are essentially symbols or numbers that store information).

Quote:It really depends on what you mean by linearity. If you mean "I really wish that Starcraft had a branching campaign with multiple endings", well, that might be fun but I don't have a problem with games like that having a linearly unfolding story. Really, I kind of got off track... I think that both linear and non-linear stories can work depending on the case of the game. And you are right, the less linear the story then generally the weaker it is (though this depends, if it's simply a branching tree then the story can have choices and some openness and be a tight story, but you would probably argue that that isn't the most nonlinear form of game design). The point was more supposed to be about something I was reading about in a Dreamfall (The Longest Journey 2) interview I read a few days ago. There, the game's designer was saying that they were trying to have the player be in control of the game as much as possible. Even in "cutscenes" most of the time you are in control. This is because it is an interactive game and not a film, so the player should be able to do things and not just watch events unfold. Will what you do in these cases actually change how the game unfolds? Not in every case, no. But just like in Planescape: Torment, having the FEELING of control and having something to do is what counts. It doesn't matter if the story is linear if it gives you control and some degree of effect on your environment (like the example they gave of a case where you could choose to hide from or fight some soldiers)...

So I guess that most games ever made, including Mario and Zelda, suck because you cannot control the story and are merely playing a part in it.

Your insane theories are getting worse and worse by the minute.

Quote:Oh yeah, and Deux Ex would be a good example of a game with interactivity and choices throughout, while still maintaining a strong narrative.

Deus Ex's story is terrible, absolutely terrible. If it were a movie it'd be made fun of more than a hundred Day After Tomorrows. It's just a dumb, cliche rip-off of various different stories. It's told relatively well for a game and especially for a FPS, but it's really, really lame.

Quote:It's not the exact same thing as having live actors, but it serves the same purpose (if probably with a loss of effectiveness). For expressions, games generally either have portraits or faces that show what the person's experession is (with voice acting and stuff usually) -- see Fallout for instance, or most anime-inspired games, they try to describe it in the text, or both. Fallout for instance has portraits for the major NPCs, that animate with voice for when they talk. Quest for Glory has a portrait of who you are talking to and the face animates some as they speak. Baldur's Gate? True, it does not have that. It just has the text and the on-screen graphics. This probably does make it a bit less personal and film-like, and it means that it relies more on writing... and fortunately, in my opinion at least, they came up with good enough writing to mostly make up for it. With a game that size, I can see why they wouldn't really want to do animating portraits for all of the major NPCs... but now that I think about it it might have been nice.

Before I go any further, I want you answer this question for me, and do not try to dodge it:

If you saw a movie (that used live actors) where the actors stood completely still in front of each other with a static camera angle focused on them, and the dialogue was told through subtitles scrolling on the bottom of the screen... would you consider it to be anything but the most awful movie you had ever seen before?

Seriously, just answer this simple question without your usual dodging tactics. Just straight-up answer that question.



*sigh*

I was hoping to educate you, but I see that this is futile. I'll give you one more chance to try to understand me, and after that I will stop trying to help you.

Quote:Actually, that is not what you said. Let me quote you right now, in regards to movies being written mediums as well as visual mediums sometimes: "If they were thinking of them as an integral part of the film, then yes, I would say that the written medium would be a definite aspect of the project."

Your ever-changing stance and lying is making this more and more difficult for you, Brian.

Ah. You misunderstand. That statment you quote there is absolutely correct. However, you have failed to analyze it. Think. What have I been saying? What was I saying then? I was saying that, if the text was meant to be a integral part of the film (that is, when they were working on making the movie there were worrying to a good extent about what should go in the text and how that would affect the people's experiences with the movie), then I would say that it may well count as text as well as visual. THIS IS NOT IMPLYING THAT THIS IS THE CASE FOR ANY SPECIFIC MOVIE HOWEVER! I even specifically stated, multiple times, that I thought that that was NOT the case for the case of 'The Passion'! So that quote there is absolutely correct, but it's a theoretical stance that I do not know of any real-world application of. Certainly not for the film in question here.

Once again, my statements have not changed. You just "misinterpreted" them into meaning something else (this is so systematic of you that I have to seriously wonder if you do it on purpose...).

Quote:I make no greater deal out of this than you do. Remember that there are two of us in this debate. I make a special note of this particular issue because your entire argument rests on it. Your entire shaky argument rests on untruths.

Not my entire case. It is a good enough portion to get me to argue the issue, since the fact is that text-based adventure games are a huge thing in the favor of saying 'books have greatly influenced computer games', but it's not the whole thing. It's probably more about the fact that your position is so ubelievably stupid.

Quote:I don't care how much you want to deny it, but text-based games are not video games and therefore your argument is baseless. I will not go through this again.

But as I just explained it's irrelevant if they are "video games" or not! That arguement, is, from every way I can see the issue, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. They are obviously in the same category as every other kind of computer games, but if you really must be an idiot about this (and I keep repeating "computer games" for a reason: to me, "video games" means console games, as they are played on a TV Video display as compared to a computer monitor... I don't go to my PC to play video games. And besides, "computer games" does not include some moronic definition you can abuse into discarding whole genres. And as for console games in this arguement, you've been talking about them, not me. I don't think I've mentioned any other than the two you brought up, while I have talked about a lot of PC games.), well then, how about I discuss King's Quest, Wizardry, NetHack, and Castle Adventure? It might dillute my arguement slightly, but not overly much. And it wouldn't bring back this idiotic arguement.

Overall, the conclusion is the obvious: they take influences from many sources.

So, how do those four games fit into the discussion of influences on games from outside sources? First, King's Quest (I, mid '80s). The game uses now-simple, but then great (16 color EGA!) graphics to create the world. You move around with the arrow keys, and interact with things by moving near them and then typing simple two or three word commands -- 'talk king' for instance. If you press the arrow key, you'll keep moving in that direction until you hit something. This could be compared to a graphical version of Zork -- you can move off the screen in four directions, wander around this region, pick up items with commands, solve puzzles with wits or items... avoid dangerous creatures... and just like how it clearly has decended from Zork it has clearly decended from fantasy literature. Simple? Yes, definitely. Equal to a book? No. But the ideas the game uses obviously come from books. Graphics in those days didn't have the finesse to do a whole lot from film (or animation, though this would be a bit more pertinent because it's got a cartoonish art style)... it's like playing a simple fantasy story.

Wizardry? Wizardry VI, that is (1991). As well as Castle Adventure (a simple but entertaining game) and NetHack. Clearly the biggest influences for these games are D&D. Each game has its own style, and it's own system, but the basic idea is to do something like a pen and paper RPG on a computer. So you have lots of combat and some descriptions of areas and, in some games, conversations. Now, fantasy includes films as well, so here the influences are more widespread, but... writing clearly plays a role. For instance in NetHack, items don't have new written descriptions; instead there are quotes from various books and poems and the like. The areas themselves don't have descriptions. Dungeons are randomly generated, so it's just up to your mind... but the literature they use for item descriptions are often great. In Wizardry, each room has a description when you enter. No graphics here to differentiate the rooms, just standard "wall", "floor", etc. tiles. So it's all up to the sentences they use to describe it. And sometimes it's just mediocre. But sometimes the writing is great. So far into the game, this is my favorite room description (from the hint guide, so it's exact).

Quote:Fibrous shreds of stained rot cling to the walls where colorful tapestry once proclaimed sovereignty in this official chamber. With grim mockery, the sweeter taste of a mighty throne perched high above the room has long turned sour, as it sits condemned to languish in its own final sentence. If there is any last judgement to be decreed upon this fallen chamber and tarnished throne, it must be gleaned from the decay that it laps upon its own dais as itself festers and rots, bearing witness to emptiness, filth and stench, silently weeping tears of its owned despoiled substance.

This is not something a graphical medium could convey in the same terms. This is not something that is "wholly a graphical medium".

Quote:Like I already said, you do not even know what the term "cinematic" means so your post is pointless. And again you've failed to understand my point. For the what, sixth time for this particular point? Amazing.

Look, either just stop responding to anything about "cinematic" or say what is so horribly wrong about what I'm saying. More insults will not get anywhere.

Quote:Not primarily; totally.

Then you are wrong, simple as that, as my previous response should make abundantly clear.

Quote:Influence means nothing! How many times do I have to repeat that??! I was influenced by a home appliance when I thought up the concept for my platformer, and what does that tell you? THAT ANYTHING CAN INFLUENCE ANYTHING WHICH MEANS THAT INFLUENCE HAS NO BEARING ON THE DEFINITION AND CONDITION OF A MEDIUM!. Maybe those big bolded letters will get the point across to you this time!

Influence does matter. It says how something got to be the way it is. More important is the results, though, which I've also been trying to describe... but influence does matter. Yes, they come from many places, but you can identify major ones, or at least try to, and it definitely helps explain how something gets to be the way it is...

Quote:That's the amazing thing about the human mind, you can become inspired or influenced by something that has very little relation to whatever that influence is placed upon! Whether games have been more influenced by books, movies, or frying pans, that is completely beside the point. You CANNOT put books directly into games and expect people to accept that. You CAN, however, put movies directly into games because games and movies are both visual mediums! And before you say "but you SEE books, so they're visual too!", books are considered to be a digital medium (that just means that the letters are essentially symbols or numbers that store information).

I can see calling books 'digital' (though it's a bit weird when that term generally means something electronic and books are best on paper)... and yes they are different from film, or drawings or what have you. There are clear similarities, but books leave more room for imagination and for the person experiencing it to interject their own thoughts or opinions onto the medium... with film that is possible too, but to a lesser extent because of how they are visual. So the user interacts with each in a different way, yes. This is not the problem with your arguement.

The problem comes when you try to equate games with film -- that is, when you say that just like film games are primarially a visual medium. As I've said throughout, this is just not true. I know you keep denigrating games for not having graphics that express themselves as well as movies do, and that is a good complaint, but they do the best they can and their efforts do not count for nothing.

Quote:So I guess that most games ever made, including Mario and Zelda, suck because you cannot control the story and are merely playing a part in it.

Your insane theories are getting worse and worse by the minute.

Mario? Stupid example. That game doesn't really have a story, controllable or not -- and for some games this is okay. Zelda? There are cutscenes, but they are limited in length and number relative to the rest of the game. And they are often put around pieces where you have control, so the player doesn't sit around doing nothing for a long time. Seriously, you talk about (or very strongly imply) how great you are and how stupid I am and then you come back with standard OB1 non-responses to serious matters... shows how well you live up to your own "standards".

And I did not say that games are horrible just because they fail to include more interactivity. I said that it should be an ideal because they are the interactive medium! The whole POINT of games is interactivity. So giving the player something to do and making them feel like they are really a part of the world and are in control and direct what is happening -- even if (or especially if, that might be more accurate) it is all an illusion -- is GOOD. Trying to involve the player more in a GAME is a good goal! it is something that should be applauded! More games should seek to be like that when it comes to the story! Yet you mindlessly attack it. Pitiful.

Quote:Deus Ex's story is terrible, absolutely terrible. If it were a movie it'd be made fun of more than a hundred Day After Tomorrows. It's just a dumb, cliche rip-off of various different stories. It's told relatively well for a game and especially for a FPS, but it's really, really lame.

It's told well, and it has what I was talking about: the illusion that you are in control of events, and some amount of real control over events on some fronts (like who you kill or if you use wits or might to solve a puzzle), while the main game and story progresses regardless of your actions. So the story is derivitive... true, so are most stories in that category no matter what media format they are on.

Quote:Fusion was linear, which is why it wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be. Zero Mission, however, shows that a simple story can be told while maintaining the nonlinear gameplay that Metroid is so loved for. Take the basic ideas from ZM and you'll have one awesome Metroid story.

The point is though that a large aspect of Metroid is the adventuring in a world by yourself... move it too much towards lots of story and you run the risk of losing some of what makes people love Metroid games... it just seems to me that a more cohesive story would make them want to make it more linear perhaps so that you follow along the story more. Maybe not, but it seems like it'd increase the likelihood...

Quote:I was hoping to educate you, but I see that this is futile. I'll give you one more chance to try to understand me, and after that I will stop trying to help you.

Could you possibly be any more arrogant (and hypocritical)? Well, we'll see...

Quote:Before I go any further, I want you answer this question for me, and do not try to dodge it:

If you saw a movie (that used live actors) where the actors stood completely still in front of each other with a static camera angle focused on them, and the dialogue was told through subtitles scrolling on the bottom of the screen... would you consider it to be anything but the most awful movie you had ever seen before?

Seriously, just answer this simple question without your usual dodging tactics. Just straight-up answer that question.

It obviously completely depends on what they were talking about and how it was written... yes, a setup like that can lead to boredom. But if what they are saying is interesting, or well written, it can be very worthwhile and definitely possibly not boring. And that isn't a great comparison to games because the backgrounds change, conversations end and then you go do other things, etc...

I don't know of anything quite like what you describe. The closest I can think of is Charlie Rose -- two or three people sitting at a table in a completely black room talking in normal tones of voice for half an hour or more. With maybe a break or two for clips of a film if it's a movie star; otherwise no breaks. Is it a boring show? At times. But when what they are discussing is intresting, it is not...

Quote:Ah. You misunderstand. That statment you quote there is absolutely correct. However, you have failed to analyze it. Think. What have I been saying? What was I saying then? I was saying that, if the text was meant to be a integral part of the film (that is, when they were working on making the movie there were worrying to a good extent about what should go in the text and how that would affect the people's experiences with the movie), then I would say that it may well count as text as well as visual. THIS IS NOT IMPLYING THAT THIS IS THE CASE FOR ANY SPECIFIC MOVIE HOWEVER! I even specifically stated, multiple times, that I thought that that was NOT the case for the case of 'The Passion'! So that quote there is absolutely correct, but it's a theoretical stance that I do not know of any real-world application of. Certainly not for the film in question here.

Once again, my statements have not changed. You just "misinterpreted" them into meaning something else (this is so systematic of you that I have to seriously wonder if you do it on purpose...).

[

If by "misinterpreting" you mean that I proved your point to be laughable and false then yes, you are correct.

Like I've been saying this entire time, you don't understand the definition of any of the terms that we are using. You don't know what makes a video game. You don't know how to classify mediums. You don't know what cinematic means. You don't know what influence means. You don't know jack shit.

This is getting very old. Continue this way and I'm leaving this thread.

Quote:Not my entire case. It is a good enough portion to get me to argue the issue, since the fact is that text-based adventure games are a huge thing in the favor of saying 'books have greatly influenced computer games', but it's not the whole thing. It's probably more about the fact that your position is so ubelievably stupid.

Haha, your unbelievable stupidity really cracks me up. Read above post.

Quote:But as I just explained it's irrelevant if they are "video games" or not! That arguement, is, from every way I can see the issue, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. They are obviously in the same category as every other kind of computer games, but if you really must be an idiot about this (and I keep repeating "computer games" for a reason: to me, "video games" means console games, as they are played on a TV Video display as compared to a computer monitor... I don't go to my PC to play video games. And besides, "computer games" does not include some moronic definition you can abuse into discarding whole genres. And as for console games in this arguement, you've been talking about them, not me. I don't think I've mentioned any other than the two you brought up, while I have talked about a lot of PC games.), well then, how about I discuss King's Quest, Wizardry, NetHack, and Castle Adventure? It might dillute my arguement slightly, but not overly much. And it wouldn't bring back this idiotic arguement.

Overall, the conclusion is the obvious: they take influences from many sources.

So, how do those four games fit into the discussion of influences on games from outside sources? First, King's Quest (I, mid '80s). The game uses now-simple, but then great (16 color EGA!) graphics to create the world. You move around with the arrow keys, and interact with things by moving near them and then typing simple two or three word commands -- 'talk king' for instance. If you press the arrow key, you'll keep moving in that direction until you hit something. This could be compared to a graphical version of Zork -- you can move off the screen in four directions, wander around this region, pick up items with commands, solve puzzles with wits or items... avoid dangerous creatures... and just like how it clearly has decended from Zork it has clearly decended from fantasy literature. Simple? Yes, definitely. Equal to a book? No. But the ideas the game uses obviously come from books. Graphics in those days didn't have the finesse to do a whole lot from film (or animation, though this would be a bit more pertinent because it's got a cartoonish art style)... it's like playing a simple fantasy story.

Wizardry? Wizardry VI, that is (1991). As well as Castle Adventure (a simple but entertaining game) and NetHack. Clearly the biggest influences for these games are D&D. Each game has its own style, and it's own system, but the basic idea is to do something like a pen and paper RPG on a computer. So you have lots of combat and some descriptions of areas and, in some games, conversations. Now, fantasy includes films as well, so here the influences are more widespread, but... writing clearly plays a role. For instance in NetHack, items don't have new written descriptions; instead there are quotes from various books and poems and the like. The areas themselves don't have descriptions. Dungeons are randomly generated, so it's just up to your mind... but the literature they use for item descriptions are often great. In Wizardry, each room has a description when you enter. No graphics here to differentiate the rooms, just standard "wall", "floor", etc. tiles. So it's all up to the sentences they use to describe it. And sometimes it's just mediocre. But sometimes the writing is great. So far into the game, this is my favorite room description (from the hint guide, so it's exact).

LEARN WHAT INFLUENCE MEANS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO MY ARGUMENT!!!!!

I refuse to repeat myself for the tenth time! I've explained this to you in GREAT DETAIL yet you've ignored it/couldn't comprehend it each time!

Quote:Quote:
Fibrous shreds of stained rot cling to the walls where colorful tapestry once proclaimed sovereignty in this official chamber. With grim mockery, the sweeter taste of a mighty throne perched high above the room has long turned sour, as it sits condemned to languish in its own final sentence. If there is any last judgement to be decreed upon this fallen chamber and tarnished throne, it must be gleaned from the decay that it laps upon its own dais as itself festers and rots, bearing witness to emptiness, filth and stench, silently weeping tears of its owned despoiled substance.

This is not something a graphical medium could convey in the same terms. This is not something that is "wholly a graphical medium".

If that's a text-based game then it is not a game. If it's an actual video game and uses excerpts from novels then it is a video game. Movies can show quotes from books as well!

Quote:Look, either just stop responding to anything about "cinematic" or say what is so horribly wrong about what I'm saying. More insults will not get anywhere.

With anybody else I would, but since you can't even understand a single one of my easy-to-understand sentences, there is no point.

Quote:Then you are wrong, simple as that, as my previous response should make abundantly clear.

Yeah your previous response is as inane as all of your posts have been so far. You don't even know how mediums are classified, so you're just making yourself look like an even bigger moron.

Quote:Influence does matter. It says how something got to be the way it is. More important is the results, though, which I've also been trying to describe... but influence does matter. Yes, they come from many places, but you can identify major ones, or at least try to, and it definitely helps explain how something gets to be the way it is...

No, it does not! So if I create a game that's mainly influenced by grass, does it change it's classification as a medium?? Idiot.

Quote:I can see calling books 'digital' (though it's a bit weird when that term generally means something electronic and books are best on paper)... and yes they are different from film, or drawings or what have you. There are clear similarities, but books leave more room for imagination and for the person experiencing it to interject their own thoughts or opinions onto the medium... with film that is possible too, but to a lesser extent because of how they are visual. So the user interacts with each in a different way, yes. This is not the problem with your arguement.

The problem comes when you try to equate games with film -- that is, when you say that just like film games are primarially a visual medium. As I've said throughout, this is just not true. I know you keep denigrating games for not having graphics that express themselves as well as movies do, and that is a good complaint, but they do the best they can and their efforts do not count for nothing.

The reason why you've never heard books being called digital and continue to call books a “written medium” is because like I said you are completely, 100% ignorant to every aspect of this debate. Every aspect. This is like some moron kid arguing with a contruction worker over how cranes work. It's pathetic.You sir, are pathetic.

Quote:Mario? Stupid example. That game doesn't really have a story, controllable or not -- and for some games this is okay. Zelda? There are cutscenes, but they are limited in length and number relative to the rest of the game. And they are often put around pieces where you have control, so the player doesn't sit around doing nothing for a long time. Seriously, you talk about (or very strongly imply) how great you are and how stupid I am and then you come back with standard OB1 non-responses to serious matters... shows how well you live up to your own "standards".

And I did not say that games are horrible just because they fail to include more interactivity. I said that it should be an ideal because they are the interactive medium! The whole POINT of games is interactivity. So giving the player something to do and making them feel like they are really a part of the world and are in control and direct what is happening -- even if (or especially if, that might be more accurate) it is all an illusion -- is GOOD. Trying to involve the player more in a GAME is a good goal! it is something that should be applauded! More games should seek to be like that when it comes to the story! Yet you mindlessly attack it. Pitiful.

You're projecting again. That's all you can do. Project.

Mario and Zelda are linear games. It does not matter that there is little story in Mario because you follow a set path and have to interact within bounds. If you added two hours of cut scenes between levels in Mario 3 the gameplay would be no different. Your idiotic argument is that MGS2 is bad because there are non-controllable cinemas in between gameplay. I just tore your argument to shreds. You can't stand that, so you project. You are a very pathetic person, Brian.

Quote:It's told well, and it has what I was talking about_: the illusion that you are in control of events, and some amount of real control over events on some fronts (like who you kill or if you use wits or might to solve a puzzle), while the main game and story progresses regardless of your actions. So the story is derivitive... true, so are most stories in that category no matter what media format they are on.

The story isn't even told well. Compared to BG's atrocious method of story-telling it's good, but that's not saying much.

Quote:The point is though that a large aspect of Metroid is the adventuring in a world by yourself... move it too much towards lots of story and you run the risk of losing some of what makes people love Metroid games... it just seems to me that a more cohesive story would make them want to make it more linear perhaps so that you follow along the story more. Maybe not, but it seems like it'd increase the likelihood...

That's idiotic. Since when do you need a crowded cast of characters to tell a story? I guess Cast Away sucked because it was just Tom Hanks and his imagination.

Quote:Could you possibly be any more arrogant (and hypocritical)? Well, we'll see...

You've forced me to be. I've had enough of your ego. Ego is bad enough when someone does know what they're talking about, but when it comes from someone as ignorant to the topic as yourself it's a hundred times worse.

Quote:It obviously completely depends on what they were talking about and how it was written... yes, a setup like that can lead to boredom. But if what they are saying is interesting, or well written, it can be very worthwhile and definitely possibly not boring. And that isn't a great comparison to games because the backgrounds change, conversations end and then you go do other things, etc...

I don't know of anything quite like what you describe. The closest I can think of is Charlie Rose -- two or three people sitting at a table in a completely black room talking in normal tones of voice for half an hour or more. With maybe a break or two for clips of a film if it's a movie star; otherwise no breaks. Is it a boring show? At times. But when what they are discussing is intresting, it is not...

This basically sums up everything about your opinion on the matter. I'm glad I finally got you to answer it.

You think this would be entertaining, when nobody in their right mind would think so. You can only compare it to Charlie Rose, yet even that has people actually talking! Try removing the talking in Charlie Rose, all hints of emotion and animation from the people talking, and replace everything with text. I doubt even you would find that entertaining. Or maybe you would, all things considered...

That is what Baldur's Gate is.

bump

Quote:If that's a text-based game then it is not a game. If it's an actual video game and uses excerpts from novels then it is a video game. Movies can show quotes from books as well!

None of that is true, as I tried to explain carefully in those paragraphs you quoted to avoid just that response from you.

First, as I said, none of those four games are text based. Second, that's not a book quote. I said that NetHack has book/poem/etc quotes in it as item descriptions. Then I started talking about Wizardry VI, and said that it has room descriptions done in text. That is a room description from Wizardry VI, which you get when you enter the room. There, clear now?

Quote:You're projecting again. That's all you can do. Project.

Mario and Zelda are linear games. It does not matter that there is little story in Mario because you follow a set path and have to interact within bounds. If you added two hours of cut scenes between levels in Mario 3 the gameplay would be no different. Your idiotic argument is that MGS2 is bad because there are non-controllable cinemas in between gameplay. I just tore your argument to shreds. You can't stand that, so you project. You are a very pathetic person, Brian.

You did not "tear my arguement to shreds" because that was not my arguement. I did not mention MGS in that quote because I was not thinking about MGS when I was writing that segment. Disbelieve me if you wish, but it is true. I was not thinking about MGS. I was thinking about what I stated: your comments about Mario and Zelda.

As you say about my comments about your posts, you take what I said to mean what I most certainly did not. I am NOT saying that MGS2 is a bad game. I am NOT saying that I disliked the game. I said just yesterday that I liked it! No, that had little to do with MGS's quality. It was merely talking about what games should be, ideally, and that this is what tha developer thought should be done in games to better achieve what should be the goal in an interactive medium: more time with you controlling your character and getting more options that "affect the game" while doing so.

So no, that was not an 'attack' on MGS in the sense that I disliked the game a lot because of it or something. Was it a criticism? Yes, I guess you could take it to be that. But there's nothing wrong with some games being more like films and some being less so, so there's nothing wrong with there being some MGSes out there... MGS may have long cutscenes, but it keeps them interesting so it's not really a problem. MGS is an extreme, but it's okay to have some things on the extremes so I'm not saying MGS should be dramatically different.

As for Mario and Zelda, you are saying exactly the same thing I was as far as Mario: the lack of story is irrelevant because the point of the game isn't story, it's doing things. An adventure. And you don't mention Zelda.

Quote:No, it does not! So if I create a game that's mainly influenced by grass, does it change it's classification as a medium?? Idiot.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here... "does it change it's classification as a medium"? Huh? You don't make enough sense for me to reply with a definite sense of what you meant.

My best guess is that you're saying that I would say that if a game was influenced greatly by grass that the game's classification should change to 'grass-influenced' instead of whatever previous classification it was in. Which is a pretty vague statement.

Classification for the type of game should be determined by the final product, obviously. But when influence is the subject, the classification of the final product isn't really the point anymore I think... the point is trying to decide what made it into that final product. Saying 'it was greatly influenced by grass' would not, then, be saying that it changes its final classification, unless the final product resulted in something greatly different from what would be expected with other products in that class. I doubt that that would usually be the case.

Quote:The story isn't even told well. Compared to BG's atrocious method of story-telling it's good, but that's not saying much.

The point is it effectively gives you choices about how to act as you play through the game. This is good game design as it lets you more mould the character to be how you wish it. Now, are there two schools of thought on that? Yes, sure. You can either say "this you your character and you should try to be like them" or try to say "you are the character and you can do things to make it be like you (or how you want)". The first implies more linearity and the game setting a character more strongly. The second is, most of the time, the better approach, as it allows more people to connect with the character. Not always certainly, because there are plenty of games where the game would not work if the character was a "You" instead of a specific personality, but on the whole that should be the ideal. And even in games with characters with a set personality, it's not impossible to give the player a degree of control. That Dreamfall preview is a great example of a game designer explaining how giving the player control is good and how it is done even in a game with strong character designs.

Again, not every game needs to be this way. It is definitely something that makes games harder to develop and is not needed everywhere. But as an overall trend... I'd love to see it.

And you know what? Leaving ego aside, I think you would too. Why? Because of how often you talk about liking non-linear games. It is pretty strange to see you arguing AGAINST adding even a structured form of non-linearity to (some) games, given how strongly you are usually arguing FOR it...

Quote:With anybody else I would, but since you can't even understand a single one of my easy-to-understand sentences, there is no point.

You might be surprised if you tried.

Quote:This basically sums up everything about your opinion on the matter. I'm glad I finally got you to answer it.

You think this would be entertaining, when nobody in their right mind would think so. You can only compare it to Charlie Rose, yet even that has people actually talking! Try removing the talking in Charlie Rose, all hints of emotion and animation from the people talking, and replace everything with text. I doubt even you would find that entertaining. Or maybe you would, all things considered...

That is what Baldur's Gate is.

That pretty much does sum it up, yes... we have diametrically opposed views on what we like in these games.

Look, I do not have to be trained in filmmaking or creative writing to know when I like a story. I have read enough books and played enough games to know when I like a story and how a game presents it and when I do not. I am also sure that I have a much better grasp on this than most people given how I HAVE read a lot of books and played many games. A big part of your problem is that you aren't trying to undertstand me past my not complete knowledge of your terms. So instead of saying (on this particular issue, not necessarially on all of the ones we have raised in this thread) "we disagree", you say "I understand better than you and I am right". Which is silly, given that the subject is something as subjective as storytelling! Why can't you accept that people can have a difference of opinion without trying to force your opinion on everyone else?

But it really does sum up our differences on the issue. You state there that you would say that BG is about as interesting as Charlie Rose in a foreign language with subtitles. Now, would that be intresting? Sometimes, but it'd get boring fast that I must admit... that we agree on. Where I disagree is when it comes to games. I have never felt that way about Baldur's Gate because of anything relating to storytelling. I have not thought "this is boring because I cannot see their face". I'd never even really thought of it until you mentioned it because ... it's hard to explain really, but BG is, to me, engrossing. A game I can lose myself in for hours. And between the writing and the graphics (to show what kind of a character the person is) and the short bits of speech the important characters get, I feel that it provides plenty of information to the players for them to feel like they are part of the world if they want to try to feel that way.

Because you see, Baldur's Gate is a game about trying to make a game of Dungeons and Dragons into a computer game. You don't really like D&D, so it doesn't surprise me that you dislike a game based off of it... but when compared to a D&D module, or even a freeform D&D world, Baldur's Gate does as well as can be expected. D&D doesn't always have the best character descriptions or the most complex stories (or storytelling or descriptions about the world you are in). In the real thing this is okay because it's a group and you get the roleplaying experience off of eachother. In a game this doesn't work, of course, so the game is necessarially different. However, it's as close as it can be within the limits of having fun... so it really does have the flavor of a D&D game. Except, I'd say, that BGII has a better story than a lot of D&D games... that's one of the things it probably has to do to try to make up for the fact that the game is not as freeform or as group-oriented (as in multiple people) as a game of tabletop D&D. It's got to change in some ways and the main ways it does is by becoming more a game of grand strategy -- that is, controlling a party and not a character, but with less choice about what you can do with each character than a real game of D&D -- and by making the world and the story more complex and interesting. Baldur's Gate achieves these goals and becomes a truly great game for anyone who enjoys games which attempt to do their best at translating tabletop gaming onto a computer screen.

If this isn't a style of game you like, then don't blame me. It also doesn't mean that you are a horrible person or something, of course, it just means we disagree, but don't blame me for not having a clue about good game/story design when I most certainly can express an opinion about many things relating to the subject or including the subject. You don't learn about what you LIKE in stories or from games from a book, after all, you learn it from experience... you learn the details of the facts and the definitions from such sources, to help you make a better case for what you like.

That's it! I see that you completely failed to listen to me, so I will no longer participate in this thread.

It's sad that I always have to be the bigger man.

I know (because you said so) you are basing that on not reading those three posts of mine, but on the MSN thing. After that I thought about it and did these replies while trying my best to not attack you or anything... you don't have to read them, but I really would like you to read the third one at least. About the BG/Charlie Rose thing. Don't respond to the third post unless you have something different (or useful?) to say, because a continuation of this would get nowhere, but I really would like you to read it...