17th November 2004, 12:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th November 2004, 12:56 PM by A Black Falcon.)
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.