18th November 2004, 12:48 PM
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?)
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.)
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.
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...
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.
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.
No I did not. Here's the quote. Read more carefully (though I know you never will)!
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...
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 ...
It's referring to how older games had less or no graphics so the text-based element was more important for them.
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.
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.
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.