31st January 2005, 5:23 PM
I can control the vehicles! *brings up ONE minor point alone so as to avoid the rest of the issues LL brings up, having no real argument against those* Seriously though, Halo 2 is fun multiplayer, passable single player, and nothing else. I just want Perfect Dark Online. Oh and, yes, Master Chief is certainly the most... um... shallow character ever designed in a game. Yes, I'm even compairing him to Pac-Man, because Pac-Man doesn't HAVE a set personality at all, allowing you to imagine whatever you want for him. Master Chief COULD have been that if he KEPT HIS FRICKIN' MOUTH SHUT, but no, they go and give him a personality for us. Had it been any good at all, it wouldn't have been too bad a way to go (though EVERYONE is doing that these days), but it was the most shallow action movie type of character one can come up with, the cold disconnected hero who stops at nothing and feels no emotion, ever, making you wonder why he even bothers going about saving the world when it would just get in the way of his cool disconnected personality. Had he kept his mouth shut, I could have come up with my own storyline for the guy that would have been completely awesome. My version of him would have been afraid most of the time, just as an example. Also my version would fully realize that every other soldier of his class was killed and he really doesn't stand a chance, more of a bid for survival character than a "I'm a bad arse and you all are going dooooowwwwnnn". Any person here, even ASM, could have come up with a much more compelling character, and that's what they should have let us do. The REST of the story is interesting, and even the story of the alien guy is decent, but when the main character of the series is as dull as a smooth river stone, the rest of the story just falls apart.
---------------
Sorry, persona shifted there... I gotta say, I simultaneously agree and disagree with this article.
Here's where I agree. Some games are going too far with the cinema scenes, in places, but I don't think it's exactly rampant. Most of the time it's just badly done storytelling if you ask me. That is, story told in non-interactive ways as opposed to interactive ways, or, story told for too long an amount of time when some gameplay can be inserted in certain parts. Also, some games try too much to be JUST a good story but don't have the gameplay to back it up.
Here's where I disagree. When done correctly, a good story can make a game transcend a mere fun time into something FAR more, where you are more "there" than you could ever be otherwise. You are in another world, a living breathing world, and you ARE the character. It doesn't even have to be that. The story could have a message that can only be properly conveyed if you are actually playing through the story rather than watching it.
Here's a classic example, Metal Gear Solid 2. I pick 2 over 1 or 3 due to the very nature of the story. 1 was about free will vs genes. 2 was about free will vs environment (together they create a package for both sides of the argument). Anywho, MGS2's storyline was non-interactive cut scenes, but it HAD to be that way. Sure, the story could have easily been a movie, but the entire impact of the very point the story writer was trying to get across would have been totally lost unless you were actually PLAYING the game, that is, between cutscenes. The gameplay itself forced you to more or less go along one path, though you had freedom enough to decide how you went along the path, and that TOO HAD to be the case to get the point of the story across. When I say get the point across, I mean the very act of PLAYING the game, having completed it, is the PROOF of the point of the story. By simply getting to the ending credits, you prove the very thing the writer was trying to say. They did state the lesson, but without that proof, you playing through it, and without the cinema scenes being as non-interactive as they were, there is no way the story's main "point" could have possibly got across as it did. Again, it's a "nurture vs free will" story, about how much we have a choice over things, so that in mind those who haven't played it may get an idea of exactly what sort of point they are trying to get across using this method. What also was done right was the gameplay, being VERY fun and with enough freedom to allow you to at list pick how you get from point a to point b (an unchangable path). Now, I will add that the cinemas did get a little long at times. Pfft, a little, way too long actually. I got the point of the story, but I think they should have added some more gameplay, that is, split the cinema scenes up a bit with lots of gameplay between story points. For example, instead of watching Raiden or Snake do ANYTHING, we should have been the ones to do it for them.
For other games, the issue is that story should be told in playable ways. For example, Doom 3, while an otherwise not very good game, did a great job making storytelling a part of the experience. Sure, the story was aweful, but the method was brilliant (which pretty much describes every aspect of that game actually, aweful art style, great graphics engine, that sort of thing). The way the story was told was in the form of audio or video files you watched or listened to WHILE playing the game. Technically, you can listen or watch to them while the game is paused, but honestly I think that the player should have been forced to only be able to listen while the game is not paused, as that is just the best way to go about it. What you do is start the audio file, for example, then you continue playing the game. Such a simple thing, but really it did wonders. Nothing like wandering around a dark room with just a flashlight examining corners while some scared guy in the recording is describing doing the same thing only THAT guy finds a monster, but you don't find anything. Suddenly, you hear a sound during the recording, and you start freaking out but the file is still playing. So, you are getting ready for a battle while listening to this guy describe exactly how he is getting gutted. Doing that made the story interactive in a very real way. It was like listening to a campfire scary story and suddenly the person in cahoots with the storyteller, hiding behind the bushes, jumps out and scares everyone. I've never been in such a situation, but I've seen it on TV enough that I figure you all know what I'm talking about.
As for videos, that worked by just having a moniter or television in the environment playing a video while you were wandering around. Again, interactive simply because you are able to do things, and so is the game, like the enemies, while story is going on.
Anyway, cut scenes will always have their place, as they have ever since Final Fantasy 1 (the bridge scene is about the only one I can think of in the NES version, but it still counts), and they are welcome so long as they don't overstay it, the welcome I mean. They can add to a story a lot in various ways. For example, Zelda does cutscenes very well. MOST of the Zelda games make sure all the cinema scenes take place around Link (Capcom seems to miss the point that it's all from Player's perspective because they seem to insert a few "meanwhile, at the castle" scenes into their Zelda games for some reason). Essentially, while playing the game you see all sorts of crazy stuff and get control returned to you soon enough. It's really interested. Also, with the Nintendo made Zelda games anyway, it's all from Link's perspective on purpose, so while a LOT of story can go on when Link isn't around, the idea is that it's supposed to catch you off guard, or Link has to figure out what just happened on his own. Really, Zelda does a great job of telling it's stories.
(Speaking of Capcom games being a little different, look at Minish Cap. The story was pretty good, and I'm currently adding it into the massive storyline, which now stretches WAY into the past at this point and leaves room for yet another major story occuring before even Minish Cap. However, they did a "meanwhile" cutscene a couple times in the game. Flashbacks that people are actually explaining to you are fine, but when they went to the castle... Well I'll only say that that could have been a lot better if the player had no idea what was going on and had to noodle out what was going on with the King by themselves via strong hints until it was finally revealed right in front of Link.
Eh, anyway story is NOT needed for an awesome game. Tetris and Katamari Damacy prove that well enough (I could have enjoyed that game even without what little baseline story it had). However, neither is story something that adds nothing TO a game when done properly. Story can make a game an incredible experience if done right, even though story isn't actually needed for a good game at all. This is the odd seemingly contradictory end opinion I have about it. Correctly done story is AWESOME and adds a LOT to the gameplay experience itself, but it isn't needed in the least. :D
---------------
Sorry, persona shifted there... I gotta say, I simultaneously agree and disagree with this article.
Here's where I agree. Some games are going too far with the cinema scenes, in places, but I don't think it's exactly rampant. Most of the time it's just badly done storytelling if you ask me. That is, story told in non-interactive ways as opposed to interactive ways, or, story told for too long an amount of time when some gameplay can be inserted in certain parts. Also, some games try too much to be JUST a good story but don't have the gameplay to back it up.
Here's where I disagree. When done correctly, a good story can make a game transcend a mere fun time into something FAR more, where you are more "there" than you could ever be otherwise. You are in another world, a living breathing world, and you ARE the character. It doesn't even have to be that. The story could have a message that can only be properly conveyed if you are actually playing through the story rather than watching it.
Here's a classic example, Metal Gear Solid 2. I pick 2 over 1 or 3 due to the very nature of the story. 1 was about free will vs genes. 2 was about free will vs environment (together they create a package for both sides of the argument). Anywho, MGS2's storyline was non-interactive cut scenes, but it HAD to be that way. Sure, the story could have easily been a movie, but the entire impact of the very point the story writer was trying to get across would have been totally lost unless you were actually PLAYING the game, that is, between cutscenes. The gameplay itself forced you to more or less go along one path, though you had freedom enough to decide how you went along the path, and that TOO HAD to be the case to get the point of the story across. When I say get the point across, I mean the very act of PLAYING the game, having completed it, is the PROOF of the point of the story. By simply getting to the ending credits, you prove the very thing the writer was trying to say. They did state the lesson, but without that proof, you playing through it, and without the cinema scenes being as non-interactive as they were, there is no way the story's main "point" could have possibly got across as it did. Again, it's a "nurture vs free will" story, about how much we have a choice over things, so that in mind those who haven't played it may get an idea of exactly what sort of point they are trying to get across using this method. What also was done right was the gameplay, being VERY fun and with enough freedom to allow you to at list pick how you get from point a to point b (an unchangable path). Now, I will add that the cinemas did get a little long at times. Pfft, a little, way too long actually. I got the point of the story, but I think they should have added some more gameplay, that is, split the cinema scenes up a bit with lots of gameplay between story points. For example, instead of watching Raiden or Snake do ANYTHING, we should have been the ones to do it for them.
For other games, the issue is that story should be told in playable ways. For example, Doom 3, while an otherwise not very good game, did a great job making storytelling a part of the experience. Sure, the story was aweful, but the method was brilliant (which pretty much describes every aspect of that game actually, aweful art style, great graphics engine, that sort of thing). The way the story was told was in the form of audio or video files you watched or listened to WHILE playing the game. Technically, you can listen or watch to them while the game is paused, but honestly I think that the player should have been forced to only be able to listen while the game is not paused, as that is just the best way to go about it. What you do is start the audio file, for example, then you continue playing the game. Such a simple thing, but really it did wonders. Nothing like wandering around a dark room with just a flashlight examining corners while some scared guy in the recording is describing doing the same thing only THAT guy finds a monster, but you don't find anything. Suddenly, you hear a sound during the recording, and you start freaking out but the file is still playing. So, you are getting ready for a battle while listening to this guy describe exactly how he is getting gutted. Doing that made the story interactive in a very real way. It was like listening to a campfire scary story and suddenly the person in cahoots with the storyteller, hiding behind the bushes, jumps out and scares everyone. I've never been in such a situation, but I've seen it on TV enough that I figure you all know what I'm talking about.
As for videos, that worked by just having a moniter or television in the environment playing a video while you were wandering around. Again, interactive simply because you are able to do things, and so is the game, like the enemies, while story is going on.
Anyway, cut scenes will always have their place, as they have ever since Final Fantasy 1 (the bridge scene is about the only one I can think of in the NES version, but it still counts), and they are welcome so long as they don't overstay it, the welcome I mean. They can add to a story a lot in various ways. For example, Zelda does cutscenes very well. MOST of the Zelda games make sure all the cinema scenes take place around Link (Capcom seems to miss the point that it's all from Player's perspective because they seem to insert a few "meanwhile, at the castle" scenes into their Zelda games for some reason). Essentially, while playing the game you see all sorts of crazy stuff and get control returned to you soon enough. It's really interested. Also, with the Nintendo made Zelda games anyway, it's all from Link's perspective on purpose, so while a LOT of story can go on when Link isn't around, the idea is that it's supposed to catch you off guard, or Link has to figure out what just happened on his own. Really, Zelda does a great job of telling it's stories.
(Speaking of Capcom games being a little different, look at Minish Cap. The story was pretty good, and I'm currently adding it into the massive storyline, which now stretches WAY into the past at this point and leaves room for yet another major story occuring before even Minish Cap. However, they did a "meanwhile" cutscene a couple times in the game. Flashbacks that people are actually explaining to you are fine, but when they went to the castle... Well I'll only say that that could have been a lot better if the player had no idea what was going on and had to noodle out what was going on with the King by themselves via strong hints until it was finally revealed right in front of Link.
Eh, anyway story is NOT needed for an awesome game. Tetris and Katamari Damacy prove that well enough (I could have enjoyed that game even without what little baseline story it had). However, neither is story something that adds nothing TO a game when done properly. Story can make a game an incredible experience if done right, even though story isn't actually needed for a good game at all. This is the odd seemingly contradictory end opinion I have about it. Correctly done story is AWESOME and adds a LOT to the gameplay experience itself, but it isn't needed in the least. :D
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)