17th November 2004, 10:32 AM
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.