Story and Games

[OB1]

First part: There is a difference in interactivity between the two kinds of controls, but it's small, and each one has its uses. In an RPG, I'd generally like to be able to choose either one.

MGS: First, since when does having choices necessrially mean everyone stands around? Second, a lot of MGS's story -- the comlink stuff -- IS done in a static form! A lot of that would be PERFECT for having choices of what to say!

Non-interactive does not mean static. Allow me:


stat·ic
adj.

1. Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.
2. Fixed; stationary.

You seem to think that every facet of a game has to be interactive in order for it to be good. That is false. Believe it or not, but 95% of the time when a gamer thinks that they're "in control", they are simply playing the part that the designer chose them to. The degrees of freedom within that role vary from game to game.

MGS2 could not be done as a movie. Simple as that. The story is the game as Kojima pointed out. The rest just adds to the experience. Of course, you've barely played the game so you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Yes, he does say that. But then he says this...
Quote:
I don't think technology has ever gotten in the way of storytelling, and I think Infocom games are the proof of that. Even as simple as they seemed to be, as long as text could be presented on the screen, you could bring across a powerful story experience even without graphics or a 3D engine. I guess in the end, I think technology can only enhance the story experience (facial animations, voice acting, animations, fully realized world, scripted reactive elements, physics-based engines, etc.).

which goes the other way. I'd say my original charitarization ('conflicted') is about right -- better graphics help, but good things were possible before then too.

As for BG, so the story is presented in text. So? Thousands of games had stories presented mainly in text, including numerous great ones! So it's potentially slightly "less interesting". So? If it's done well (like in BG) that is not a problem. Sure, emotions and stuff would be nice. But the game doesn't hurt for not having them.

Of course it hurts the game because of that. You cannot have a better method if the other one cannot be improved upon. Your logic baffles me once again.

Well then, that's different... so the story DOES matter? But I guess that if the technology doesn't suit your needs, you consider that irrelevant... so it'd be more honest, it seems, for you to say 'it needs both story and graphics'. Otherwise you wouldn't be going after games like BG or Torment anywhere near as hard, because you'd acknowledge that they tell great stories, no matter how much you disagree with the presentation.

The presentation was not flawed because of the technology. This is where you are confused by what both myself and Kojima say.