A thread with a difference: 'THE HORRORS OF WAR' in mainstream gaming

[rossmum]

c/p from a post i made elsewhere, but sums up my thoughts

I love how all the idiots on Youtube are eating up the shit writing and heavy-handed, tasteless "WAR IS HELL, LOOK WHAT YOU DID" scenes in that Spec Ops: The Line game. How incredibly thick do you have to be to actually swallow that it is part of some incredibly deep, Nobel-worthy social experiment intended to make the player question their own humanity?

The game railroads you into using white phosphorous on civilians at one point. As in, there is literally no other way to progress further; you HAVE to do it, if you want to actually finish the game you just spent money on. Big surprise, it reveals you just burned a bunch of civilians to a crisp and the end cutscene shows the corpse of a mother clutching her dead baby with all the horrific effects of WP on humans right there in front of you. Apparently "the player is supposed to blame us [the developers] for what they've done just as Walker, the protagonist, blames his men". Yeah, I'd blame you for shitty design and being tasteless, I guess, since you literally cannot complete that segment of the game without doing exactly what they want you to.

Apparently all these morons are falling for it because some idiot on IGN wrote an article about it. Oh no, not IGN, home of cutting and honest gaming journalism, where the articles are loaded with meaning and the writers' pockets definitely aren't loaded with fat wads of cash from the game's publisher!

If you want a game which makes you feel legitimately horrible, try one like Red Orchestra 2 (as bad as it otherwise is). It doesn't force you into doing anything, but that moment where you willingly, without any encouragement from the game, open up on a guy who just ran around the corner and he won't shut up as he bleeds on the ground? That feels a million times worse than some stilted bullshit which you just KNOW was put together so teenage idiots could pretend they had some kind of grand eye-opening experience about "the horrors of war".

Let's not even bother with Homefront; I mean, "PRESS E TO HIDE IN MASS GRAVE"? Really? Could you possibly be any more patronising and any less tactful?

[=sw=warlord]

Ross rages again about video games.
Meanwhile Steam enjoys a weeks worth of sales with DayZ pushing Arma 2s sales up.

[rossmum]

I am being talked down to by a pair of 30-year-olds who think I am being 'unrealistic' and 'snobbish', unlike 'the old gamers', for expecting a shooter to be more than a railroaded interactive movie. All the 'old gamers' I know are my age or so, and nearly all of them resent games like HL1 for making story such an integral part of shooters, where it is almost always more harmful than it is beneficial.

Gamers are fucking idiots. No wonder the industry has gone to absolute shit.

e/ This just in: only RPGs are allowed to have any choice at all, shooters must contain obscene amounts of story foisted upon players at every opportunity, I don't know the difference between genres. DOOM and Quake and fucking Wolfenstein apparently never existed.

[Zeph]

All the 'old gamers' I know are my age or so, and nearly all of them resent games like HL1 for making story such an integral part of shooters, where it is almost always more harmful than it is beneficial.


Therein lies the idiocy. Many developers have confused applying a story on top of a labyrinth with sticking a maze in their story. It's why I'm a much bigger fan of Halo 1 than Halo 2. By the time you use logic and story as the foundation for your game's design, you've already ruined it. Two weapons at once? Must be twice as powerful. Homing rockets? The military does it and there's a military in this game.

It's why I'm really hoping that the popularity of indie games will spread to first person shooters. If people take the time to make a shooter based on what they feel is fun instead of what the lore and marketing reps think is realism, then we'll really have another fun game.

Until then, we've started a new generation of kids on games like CoD sequels so we'll have to wade through some shit for a while.

[rossmum]

I wouldn't even say it's 'realism' per se - look at RO, and what RO2 could have been if it wasn't criminally ballsed up at the last moment - but this overpowering desire to 'engage' the player with story. Most game writers are terrible enough on their own, but take them and give them priority over everything else in the game, and you end up spectating. Ten years ago we used to have to babysit stupid, easily-killed AI teammates who would run in the way all the time and had to wait for us to open doors. Now we're the stupid, easily-killed AI teammate, getting in the way of the invincible protagonists we need to kick down doors for us.

I say this as someone who loves stories, by the way. As far as I am concerned, the level of involvement should be up to the player. Want to shoot your way through the game world like it's 1999? Go for it. Want it to be an interactive movie? Sure, I guess. Weirdo. Want something in between? Make it happen, then.

Make the world tell the story, not cinematics or annoying support characters you have to seek out and protect.

[Pooky]

I am being talked down to by a pair of 30-year-olds who think I am being 'unrealistic' and 'snobbish', unlike 'the old gamers', for expecting a shooter to be more than a railroaded interactive movie. All the 'old gamers' I know are my age or so, and nearly all of them resent games like HL1 for making story such an integral part of shooters, where it is almost always more harmful than it is beneficial.

Gamers are fucking idiots. No wonder the industry has gone to absolute shit.

e/ This just in: only RPGs are allowed to have any choice at all, shooters must contain obscene amounts of story foisted upon players at every opportunity, I don't know the difference between genres. DOOM and Quake and fucking Wolfenstein apparently never existed.

Not trying to contradict you or anything, but HL1 rarely ever forced story details upon you. For the most part the story was just there for you to absorb or ignore.

[rossmum]

There were roughly cinematic sequences you had to go through. It wasn't bad at the time, but what it led to was the problem.

[Zeph]

There were roughly cinematic sequences you had to go through. It wasn't bad at the time, but what it led to was the problem.

starcraft had cinematic sequences you had to go through. it wasn't bad at the time, but what it led to was the problem.

[JackalStomper]

If people take the time to make a shooter based on what they feel is fun instead of what the lore and marketing reps think is realism, then we'll really have another fun game.

Remember that game that everyone hated because it sacrificed the story in hopes of better gameplay?
And I'm not even talking about the fuckfest that was multiplayer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Halo-_Reach_box_art.png/250px-Halo-_Reach_box_art.png

This is made all the more better as this game in particular fails on both faults and is a culprit for the topic at hand to boot!

[rossmum]

When you're trying to make a game for a franchise like Halo, which has already established itself as being fairly story-driven (particularly the later games), you have to work with the system. It's too late to turn things around without pissing off a significant portion of the fanbase.

[Bodzilla]

who cares what fans say. fans a whiny annoying idiots.

[DarkHalo003]

Remember that game that everyone hated because it sacrificed the story in hopes of better gameplay?
And I'm not even talking about the fuckfest that was multiplayer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Halo-_Reach_box_art.png/250px-Halo-_Reach_box_art.png

This is made all the more better as this game in particular fails on both faults and is a culprit for the topic at hand to boot!
You may be entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. Halo Reach was fine in my opinion. The gameplay is solid and the story is compelling. The multiplayer had diamonds in the rough, you just had to find them (Invasion, Elite Slayer, Gametypes that didn't start with the DMR, etc.). There are far worse games out there either way, games that far better exemplify this scenario. Halo Reach had a 50/50 ratio in terms of gameplay/story and rarely did the story ever intrude on the gameplay itself.

Whether or not the story is thrust upon the player makes little difference on whether or not the game is good. Sure, gameplay can be that engagement between the player and the enemy, but there are a lot of other parts to it. Halo 3: ODST makes a perfect example of this. The environments made the game incredibly pleasing and the gameplay was top-notch. And guess what? The gameplay was relatively story driven.

I think the only games that apply to this scenario are games that follow the cliche, mainstream molding of gameplay rather than intuitive ways of changing how gameplay is defined. ODST and Reach both added newer layers to the gameplay, layers that intended to affect the emotions of the player and tempo of the gameplay itself.

[Warsaw]

I think the only games that apply to this scenario are games that follow the cliche, mainstream molding of gameplay rather than intuitive ways of changing how gameplay is defined.

So, Halo 4? Sorry couldn't resist.

I'm going to stand behind Reach as a game. It is solid, the campaign had some very compelling elements, the largest short-coming being a rash of play scenarios in which player has absolutely no option to defend himself (Legendary was not optimised for engaging play). The story itself wasn't garbage, it just threw out what we already knew and liked from the books. I don't agree with it, but it isn't the end of the world.

I don't like the multiplayer, but I haven't liked it since Halo 2 changed the original formula anyways.

As for stories in games, you've gotten it backwards. They aren't putting "story" first. They are putting industry market trends first. Everybody wants to be Call of Duty, so they all make modern military shooters. Now, they have to distinguish themselves from Call of Duty, and they can do that in many ways. Some choose to change the play mechanics, some change the setting, others still change the story. Spec Ops: The Line did what it did likely because Call of Duty had its "No Russian" level. That actually was a truly shock and awe thing at the time. Nowadays, it's just shock without awe. Oh look, they did it. Because Call of Duty did it. I'm supposed to be moved, but instead I'm chastising them for not being original. I don't even get the option to skip the level like in Call of Duty.

I think a shooter can be story driven without affecting play. In fact, a shooter can be story driven, and use the story to influence the play in positive ways. I get the impression that most teams are not thinking that way though. Developers like id Software and Valve are, and it really shows because their shooters are both phenomenal and substantial. The story world mechanics ARE the play mechanics. They don't abstract it. B-level games like Call of Duty, Spec Ops, etc.? They abstract a real world mechanic into a play mechanic, and it comes off as clunky or on-rails. That...is the real problem.

E: By the way, Metro 2033 is entirely story driven and it is a fantastic shooter in every way.

[Higuy]

e/ This just in: only RPGs are allowed to have any choice at all, shooters must contain obscene amounts of story foisted upon players at every opportunity, I don't know the difference between genres. DOOM and Quake and fucking Wolfenstein apparently never existed.

You forgot that they must also include lots of explosions and scripted events where you must press a certain button repeatedly.


When you're trying to make a game for a franchise like Halo, which has already established itself as being fairly story-driven (particularly the later games), you have to work with the system. It's too late to turn things around without pissing off a significant portion of the fanbase.

Just becuase developers try to add in great story telling and cinematic sequences DOES NOT MEAN that there cannot be good gameplay also added in. It really isnt that hard at all, and it boggles my mind as to why most developers these days cant do both. Halo 2 did this pretty well and so did Halo 3.

[Donut]

E: By the way, Metro 2033 is entirely story driven and it is a fantastic shooter in every way.
i was thinking metro and bioshock as i read this thread

[TVTyrant]

What is this thread actually about?

[Pooky]

Just gonna throw out there that Metroid Prime is a perfect example of how to do story in a (sort of) shooter. All the backstory is there and is quite in depth if you really get into it. Moreover, it leaves a lot of room for imagination and interpretation (kind of like Halo 1 did, imagine that). That said, it's all possible to completely ignore if you just really don't give a shit.

Actually, the Metroid Prime series in general is a good example. The games themselves don't have much in the way of narrative, but the environments are purposely designed to convey a sense of history that tells its own story. To me that's much more powerful than getting beaten over the head with the plot every few minutes.

[rossmum]

What is this thread actually about?
Pick an issue.

The intrusiveness and obnoxious nature of 'story' and linearity in modern gaming
The unbelievable rate at which your average gamer will eat up shallow and cheesy bullshit, then defend it to the death as something truly deep and meaningful
The willingness of gaming media to swallow great amounts of publisher cock, and write splurging articles about how significant and important this bullshit is supposed to be to society and how it affects our outlook on our own lives and hsdfhrdgdfjnfsdngtfdng kill me now

[Bodzilla]

GET ON MY HORSE I THINK HE'S AMAZING

[DarkHalo003]

Just gonna throw out there that Metroid Prime is a perfect example of how to do story in a (sort of) shooter. All the backstory is there and is quite in depth if you really get into it. Moreover, it leaves a lot of room for imagination and interpretation (kind of like Halo 1 did, imagine that). That said, it's all possible to completely ignore if you just really don't give a shit.

Actually, the Metroid Prime series in general is a good example. The games themselves don't have much in the way of narrative, but the environments are purposely designed to convey a sense of history that tells its own story. To me that's much more powerful than getting beaten over the head with the plot every few minutes.
Good post would read again. Even late games like Prime Hunters did this very well.

[Higuy]

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/ailing-video-game-industry-222612072.html

[Warsaw]

Hahaha, I saw that the other day, too. Keep charging $60 for veritable crap, and this is what happens.

[t3h m00kz]

back in my day gaming meant something

[Bodzilla]

i havn't actually bought a game since deus ex human revolution, and i used to be on the look out for deals, but i barely loaded the steam sales page this year.

it's all the same shit with a different smell.
We need ego raptor to do a sequelitis on gaming as a whole.

[Warsaw]

I'm also sick of this focus on multiplayer gaming. Played one multiplayer game, played them all. RTSes will be RTSes. MMORPGs are the same cookie-cutter BS. Shooters are all some flavour combination of Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and Domination.

I'm much more interested in playing a single-player or co-operative game set in a well-crafted world with solid mechanics that not only play well, but also help tell the tale or flesh out said world. No more of this competitive shit, please.

[Pooky]

Saw this coming a long time ago, and honestly I think Gabe was right. People are tired of paying 60 dollars for games that turn out to be shit. I got burned out on it after buying MW2 and Blops which both sucked. Smaller, lower priced releases are probably going to be the way of the future.


I'm also sick of this focus on multiplayer gaming. Played one multiplayer game, played them all.

I dunno, my favorite multiplayer game is pretty wildly different from anything else on the market. Multiplayer games can be different, it's just that everyone now wants to follow the CoD model.

Aip2aIt0ROM

Repostin dis for the third time, since it's more relevant than ever.

[rossmum]

I'm not sick of MP at all. SP games are nice and I do enjoy a story, but even games like Stalker can only be played a certain amount before they get tiresome. In MP, you are (or rather, should be) guaranteed new experiences all the while.

The problem isn't a MP focus - the problem is the same MP focus.

[Warsaw]

I dunno, my favorite multiplayer game is pretty wildly different from anything else on the market. Multiplayer games can be different, it's just that everyone now wants to follow the CoD model.

I was being very general, there are always exceptions.

Is it just too much to ask that a big budget game NOT be centered around its competitive multiplayer for once? And is it also too much to ask that a big-budget game also not be a general pile of shit?

[nuttyyayap]

You may already know this, but, while the budget may be big, most of it is going to art, as graphics have "improved" so fucking much that they need to spend the majority of the budget on it. It fucking sucks but hey, what can you do?

[Higuy]

also for mainstream gaming, graphics and explosions = $$

[Pooky]

I was being very general, there are always exceptions.

Is it just too much to ask that a big budget game NOT be centered around its competitive multiplayer for once? And is it also too much to ask that a big-budget game also not be a general pile of shit?

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree and I'd rather see more SP games. Still, MP focus wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for a general void of creativity from big publishers.

[Mr Buckshot]

ironically it was multiplayer that pushed me to quit torrenting PC games and start buying them a few years back.

now I rarely buy games specifically for multiplayer, not since BF3, and had a lot of fun along the way. Sure, the AI is crap in the shooting games but the storyline always keeps things going.

[DarkHalo003]

I'm not exactly sure if I understand the premise of this thread. Is it that someone has an opinion that stories ruin gameplay and therefore most modern games suck, or is it that someone has an opinion that most games are being milked and devs are forcing a story upon them in an attempt to make them appear legitimate?

If it's the first one, I hate this thread.

[Higuy]

Its that games are being milked, most have absolutely no replay value, and stories aren't ever that amazing anymore. Theres a few exceptions of course, but it seems the thread is mainly disucssing games like Call of Duty, Halo, etc, FPS.

The game that came out in the past year or so that was truly amazing was Skyrim, it had alot of replay value, hundreds of hours of gameplay, and a pretty worthwhile storyline.

But then we can get into other games, such as Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty. Both have mediocre story lines (that are extremely short in comparison to other games, even Halo), linear gameplay, but also a fun (although shortlived) multiplayer experience. Both games were extremely hyped up, and its no doubt that the games generated tons of sales for both EA and Activision, respectively. But seriously, were those games actually worth the money? Were they worth 60 dollars? Do they deserve the ratings they got, etc. Both got 9's, if I recall correctly on IGN, which I believe is unfair and neither game truly deserved either rating (However that is my opinion).

People here are also complaining about uncreative multiplayer experience that basically use the "CoD" effect (and may I also add that some use "Halo" like gameplay), and that each new sequal is basically just another version of its predecessor, not actually inviting any new creativity or uniquness. It's quite sad really, but obviously as everyone should be able to tell, they sell, they make money, and people who dont care about actual game design and just want to play " guns & shiny lens flare effect 5 in HD" will buy it.

[Warsaw]

tl;dr: Ross wants games that separate story from gameplay so he can just get straight to the play and totally ignore the story if he wants to. He is also tired of devs thinking they are making political statements when all they have done is force-fed something appalling to you in a way that makes you roll your eyes rather than be appalled.

Also, The Elder Scrolls in general is a terrible example if you want to talk about good stories in games.

[Higuy]

Also, The Elder Scrolls in general is a terrible example if you want to talk about good stories in games.

Whys that? Because its an RPG and you can make decisions? I still believe it has a better general storyline (Dragonborn, etc) then a game like BF or CoD were its like OMG russians! Kill! While both are totally different and both capable of producing worthwhile storylines and plots, I'm going to go with the Elder Scrolls because its generally more creative then your typical 'merica vs ruskies cliche that you see in LOTS of FPS's or Humans vs Aliens that will wipe them all out. Also it comes down to opinions as well, as I found the Elder Scrolls an extremely refreshing game compared to 90% of everything else that has come out in the last 3 years.

Mass Effect is the only other exception, and it also had a huge expanisve universive to explore and go deep in. Even Halo did not offer the same kind of exploration and discovery in its universe.

[rossmum]

tl;dr: Ross wants games that separate story from gameplay so he can just get straight to the play and totally ignore the story if he wants to. He is also tired of devs thinking they are making political statements when all they have done is force-fed something appalling to you in a way that makes you roll your eyes rather than be appalled.

Also, The Elder Scrolls in general is a terrible example if you want to talk about good stories in games.
ding ding ding

additionally bethesda are awful writers, worse than children, and if you play tes games for the story you are sadly misguided as to what constitutes a 'good story'. worse still with fallout 3, which was the biggest clusterfuck of cliched, bad writing i have seen in a long time and a disgrace to the fallout name. new vegas, on the other hand, was superb - because bethesda were only publishing, not writing the damn thing.

bethesda don't understand choice. they give you the illusion of choice (and a very shallow one at that) by having two polar opposites and no middle ground. conversation going somewhere you don't like in skyrim? there's no dialogue branch for that, the only way out is to literally just cancel the whole conversation. what kind of shitty writing and game design is that?

if you want to see REAL choice, and REAL writing, play new vegas. skyrim was decently pretty to look at and fun to explore, but it has a bad story which doesn't mesh well with gameplay at all.

[TVTyrant]

Doesn't mean they are "bad" games. Just means they aren't what you were wanting in them. It's honestly impossible to have a full "free choice" game.

[Warsaw]

Whys that? Because its an RPG and you can make decisions? I still believe it has a better general storyline (Dragonborn, etc) then a game like BF or CoD were its like OMG russians! Kill! While both are totally different and both capable of producing worthwhile storylines and plots, I'm going to go with the Elder Scrolls because its generally more creative then your typical 'merica vs ruskies cliche that you see in LOTS of FPS's or Humans vs Aliens that will wipe them all out. Also it comes down to opinions as well, as I found the Elder Scrolls an extremely refreshing game compared to 90% of everything else that has come out in the last 3 years.

Mass Effect is the only other exception, and it also had a huge expanisve universive to explore and go deep in. Even Halo did not offer the same kind of exploration and discovery in its universe.

First, you assume I like Battlefield 3 and CoD. You would be wrong. They both have terrible campaigns and questionable multiplayer. Bad Company has a fun campaign, but the story is there for amusement rather than cerebral engagement, especially with the first one.

No, TES and Mass Effect have terrible stories because their worlds are so full of pragmatic, logical, and plot-based holes. They are a mess and they can't decide what they want to be. Mass Effect started as this wondrous galaxy full of things to discover, things both terrible and awesome and ended up another cliché Man vs. Machine story with all of the discovery taken away, with flimsy characters and equally flimsy choices throughout the series.

The Elder Scrolls is even worse. Quick, let's see how many generic fantasy items we can squeeze into one game!

Vampires? check.
Orks? check.
Elves? Check.
WoW--I mean Dark--Elves? Check.
Werewolves? Check.
Dragons? Check.
Animated Skeletons? Check.
Trolls? Check...hell, the publishers themselves could count as this.
Mystical prophecy coming true and only one man/woman can stop it? Check.

Now squeezing as much as possible into the game alone is only half the problem. They didn't even try to do it tastefully. You know why Lord of the Rings is so fraking awesome? Because everything is in moderation. Magic is invisible, you don't meet some supernatural beast every two steps, the story was planned from start to finish, and the characters are few (given the size) but have real depth and substance to them. TES is supposedly a Tolkein-esque fantasy, but it's nothing more than a mockery of it. Oh, and your choices essentially boil down to "be a dick" or "not be a dick." You aren't faced with something grey and confusing like choosing to level an entire village because doing so will show some evil deity that he doesn't need to begin the Rapture yet and restore darkness to the world, thus buying time for the forces of Light to prepare.

That's why TES sucks. That's why ME sucks. Unfortunately for us, BioWare and Bethesda do try more than most and thus they are the ones setting the bar. It's not a very high bar, but it is a bar nonetheless.

A bar, by the way, that Metro 2033 passes brilliantly. Though they cheated, since Metro 2033 is a book and 4A had help from the author.

[Higuy]

ding ding ding

additionally bethesda are awful writers, worse than children, and if you play tes games for the story you are sadly misguided as to what constitutes a 'good story'. worse still with fallout 3, which was the biggest clusterfuck of cliched, bad writing i have seen in a long time and a disgrace to the fallout name. new vegas, on the other hand, was superb - because bethesda were only publishing, not writing the damn thing.

bethesda don't understand choice. they give you the illusion of choice (and a very shallow one at that) by having two polar opposites and no middle ground. conversation going somewhere you don't like in skyrim? there's no dialogue branch for that, the only way out is to literally just cancel the whole conversation. what kind of shitty writing and game design is that?

if you want to see REAL choice, and REAL writing, play new vegas. skyrim was decently pretty to look at and fun to explore, but it has a bad story which doesn't mesh well with gameplay at all.

Funny, I did not like Fallout 3's story a whole lot and never really got in to New Vegas when my brother lent it to me. Like TVTyrant said its pretty much all about opinions.


dsafidsf

What the fuck did I just read?

Oh yeah, opinions, like already stated.

[rossmum]

well, you can enjoy objectively shit writing and design, but it doesn't make it any less objectively shit

fallout 3 was a terrible game in every sense, tes games aren't bad but they sure as shit aren't helped by their awful plot devices and ham-fisted, childish writing

[TVTyrant]

So write and make a better game Ross. I'd love to see you make an RPG I can spend 100+ hours on that doesn't have a single element you'd say was contrived or childish.

The point of fantasy games is to be somewhat childish or silly. If it's not then it escapes the borders of the genre. Do you think LoTR is a childish story?

[Higuy]

well, you can enjoy objectively shit writing and design, but it doesn't make it any less objectively shit

Uh, last I checked, it only becomes shit to people who view it as shit, yep!

its just like a piece of garbage to one man could be another mans treasure.

[rossmum]

no, because by that argument (that opinions cannot be wrong, which is a load of shit), if someone thinks that genocide is cool, well, genocide is cool!

people who have an eye for good writing and gameplay generally agree that it is shit. because it is. if you look at what makes good writing, then look at bethesda games, they are very much not the same thing.

[rossmum]

So write and make a better game Ross. I'd love to see you make an RPG I can spend 100+ hours on that doesn't have a single element you'd say was contrived or childish.

The point of fantasy games is to be somewhat childish or silly. If it's not then it escapes the borders of the genre. Do you think LoTR is a childish story?
no, because lotr was well-written, as has been pointed out.

as for a game you can spend 100+ hours on... i have 350 on new vegas, if not more by this point, and that game is written superbly.

[TVTyrant]

I've spent 115 on Skyrim and while I will agree I have seen some LOL bad moments, none of them have truly turned me "off" to the game. If anything, they make me like the game more because it's not perfect.

[rossmum]

oh don't get me wrong, i really like skyrim, i wander around killing those filthy fascist elf things to help the oppressed rise up from their shackles

i fully don't care about the story at all though, it's just not really engaging, especially after new vegas spoiled me

[Warsaw]

I've spent 115 on Skyrim and while I will agree I have seen some LOL bad moments, none of them have truly turned me "off" to the game. If anything, they make me like the game more because it's not perfect.

And that's fine. What isn't fine is claiming that it's a shining example of story in a video game, because it isn't.

I'm not knocking ME and TES as games, as there are plenty of reasons to play both franchises and still enjoy them. I'm just saying that they are not good examples of world-crafting or narration within the medium.

Also, you can have a childish story that is still written well. Pick almost any Studio Ghibli film and there's your proof.

[Pooky]

Why the fuck are people in here complaining about the writing or plot in TES games. The whole point of those games, to me, is the exploration factor. If nothing else Bethesda are pretty good at creating beautiful open worlds to get lost in.

e: ninja'd by 2 or 3 posts

But seriously if you go into any Bethesda game expecting a polished experience or a well written story you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Warsaw]

The game that came out in the past year or so that was truly amazing was Skyrim, it had alot of replay value, hundreds of hours of gameplay, and a pretty worthwhile storyline.



Because of that bolded statement, Pooky. The thread is about storytelling in video-games, and so here we are.

[Pooky]

Guess I missed that bit. I dunno, the TES plot might not be very cohesive and it does have a lot of cliches but I like a lot of the various bits and pieces of it. It sets a darker tone than your average generic fantasy land and I appreciate that.

[Higuy]

Because of that bolded statement, Pooky. The thread is about storytelling in video-games, and so here we are.

If you find TES to have a bad storyline/plot/wirtten, etc, could you point me to a few good games that you beleive DO have good plots?

[rossmum]

fallout new vegas has a good one, a very good one, and has the same open world design

[Warsaw]

How many times has Metro 2033 been referenced in here?

Another good plot would be in Battlezone. It's told mostly through voiced monologues and mission debriefings, but it's pretty thorough and well-played. The gameplay is unique and addicting, too, and it is capable of making you shit your pants, despite horror not even being in the cards for the game.

Golden Sun also has a good story and a very intriguing world.

Knights of the Old Republic was good, though I question why the technological progression of the Star Wars universe has been so stagnant for 4000 years.

I'm not sure I want to say Half-Life 2 is good, but it does an amazing job at pulling me in and I absolutely crave more information than what they give us. I also can't get enough of its weird tech and how it's grafted onto normal, every day items, and the transhumanist ideas floating about. The obscurity of their plot precludes the problem of plot-holes because they've masterfully turned plot-holes into a plot-device. They can literally do anything they want in their world and feasibly write it in. It's genius.

Halo: Combat Evolved was well-assembled. They didn't overstep their bounds, and so suspension of disbelief is maintained. They also only left one major twist, keeping it simple enough to understand but complex enough to appreciate. It was a fantastically-paced exposition, climax, and resolution. I can't really say the same for the other games. Once we get to Halo 2, it all starts venturing into the realm of derp, though the accused is not as bad as its successors.

Disclaimer: I'm not really in the same boat as Ross. I don't care if a game forces me to sit through story, as long as it's a good one. I seek out good world-crafting and story-telling in games.

[rossmum]

metro was good but the game was a slave to the story, it was too heavily scripted. ditto half-life 2, another game i do love but feel has been a part of the decline of actual gameplay in story-driven games

[Warsaw]

Like I said, I don't care as long as it's done well. Metro 2033 did its scripted things so well and so seamlessly at times that I had to double check to make sure it was scripted and I didn't screw something up. I don't have a problem with linear games, again, as long as they're done well. A game doesn't have to be open to be good.

[Higuy]

fallout new vegas has a good one, a very good one, and has the same open world design

Like said previously; tried to get into the game but really couldn't for whatever reason.


How many times has Metro 2033 been referenced in here?

Another good plot would be in Battlezone. It's told mostly through voiced monologues and mission debriefings, but it's pretty thorough and well-played. The gameplay is unique and addicting, too, and it is capable of making you shit your pants, despite horror not even being in the cards for the game.

Golden Sun also has a good story and a very intriguing world.

Knights of the Old Republic was good, though I question why the technological progression of the Star Wars universe has been so stagnant for 4000 years.

I'm not sure I want to say Half-Life 2 is good, but it does an amazing job at pulling me in and I absolutely crave more information than what they give us. I also can't get enough of its weird tech and how it's grafted onto normal, every day items, and the transhumanist ideas floating about. The obscurity of their plot precludes the problem of plot-holes because they've masterfully turned plot-holes into a plot-device. They can literally do anything they want in their world and feasibly write it in. It's genius.

Halo: Combat Evolved was well-assembled. They didn't overstep their bounds, and so suspension of disbelief is maintained. They also only left one major twist, keeping it simple enough to understand but complex enough to appreciate. It was a fantastically-paced exposition, climax, and resolution. I can't really say the same for the other games. Once we get to Halo 2, it all starts venturing into the realm of derp, though the accused is not as bad as its successors.

Disclaimer: I'm not really in the same boat as Ross. I don't care if a game forces me to sit through story, as long as it's a good one. I seek out good world-crafting and story-telling in games.

I havent played Metro - but I will check it out, multiple people have said to try it to me in the past. As for Battlezone and Golden Sun, I actually havent even heard of those but I will look into them. The rest of the games I've all played - KotoR was pretty good but then again ive never been a terribly huge fan of the Star Wars universe. I've played pretty much all of the Half Life games so far, and that is probably my favorite story out of all FPS's I've played.

[=sw=warlord]

If you find TES to have a bad storyline/plot/wirtten, etc, could you point me to a few good games that you beleive DO have good plots?
I used to be an adventurer like you once.
But then I took an arrow to the knee.

[Warsaw]

Like said previously; tried to get into the game but really couldn't for whatever reason.



I havent played Metro - but I will check it out, multiple people have said to try it to me in the past. As for Battlezone and Golden Sun, I actually havent even heard of those but I will look into them. The rest of the games I've all played - KotoR was pretty good but then again ive never been a terribly huge fan of the Star Wars universe. I've played pretty much all of the Half Life games so far, and that is probably my favorite story out of all FPS's I've played.

I'll second the lack of enthusiasm for Star Wars. BioWare did a better job within that constraing than Lucas, though, so credit where credit is due.

Golden Sun is a GBA JRPG that spans two games (yes, you need both), and Battlezone is a 1998 RTS that launched first on PC, then on N64. You can find the latter as a free download (it's abandonware) just by doing a search for "Battlezone 1.5." The latter is my favourite game of all time.

[DarkHalo003]

I used to be an adventurer like you once.
But then I took an arrow to the knee.
If you're going to quote the single most enraging line from any video gaming series ever, do it fucking right.

Okay, glad to know this thread is about what I thought it was. Otherwise, I'd be spamming bullshit to ruin a bad thing worse.

Skyrim is a perfect example of this really. You don't even have to do the mainquest past gaining FusRoDah since everything clicks after that. Hell, if you don't want Thumes at all, then just play the game outside the mainquest and everything is playable. Bethesda didn't force the story on the player in Skyrim at all and this is coming from a guy who's played almost 200 hours (and I still haven't finished the Dark Brotherhood questline nor have I gotten all of the Thumes yet).

New Vegas suffered from a small world. The fact that it's open is what keeps me playing it to almost 130 hours, but it's just such a small, or at least a bit empty, world. The next Fallout that's not Fallout Online needs to be a massive world space.

[rossmum]

Yeah, that's the unfortunate thing about NV - being written by actual, competent writers and having a lot of careful thought and good voice acting go into it necessitated less to draw the devs' attention away from perfecting what was there. I've run out of Bads to murder.

[DarkHalo003]

Yeah, that's the unfortunate thing about NV - being written by actual, competent writers and having a lot of careful thought and good voice acting go into it necessitated less to draw the devs' attention away from perfecting what was there. I've run out of Bads to murder.
Basically this, but if you have it on PC there are a lot of nice mods that plump the game pretty well to bring out the best in the NPCs, though questmods should be taken very selectively as NV is not nearly as stable as other moddable games.

[Warsaw]

You are going to love this (http://kotaku.com/5930566/bethesda+stalker-rumor-resurfaces-but-no-ones-talking), Ross.

If it turns out that it is true even after what the guy said, I'm going to have a fit. The absolute last thing I want is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on some Gamebryo-derived piece-of-shit engine. I also sure as hell do NOT want to EVER see V.A.T.S. or any other easy-to-use system in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[rossmum]

Basically this, but if you have it on PC there are a lot of nice mods that plump the game pretty well to bring out the best in the NPCs, though questmods should be taken very selectively as NV is not nearly as stable as other moddable games.
I cannot recommend New Vegas Bounties (http://newvegas.nexusmods.com/mods/37310) enough. It's great, it's well-written, the voice acting is quite good let alone for a mod, and it has the same little tongue-in-cheek references as the base game does without heading into FO3 ridicu-shit territory.


You are going to love this (http://kotaku.com/5930566/bethesda+stalker-rumor-resurfaces-but-no-ones-talking), Ross.

If it turns out that it is true even after what the guy said, I'm going to have a fit. The absolute last thing I want is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on some Gamebryo-derived piece-of-shit engine. I also sure as hell do NOT want to EVER see V.A.T.S. or any other easy-to-use system in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
As I said on Steam, it's disturbing, but between Survivarium (which is actually sounding surprisingly good) and the existing trilogy, I'm not as worried as I would have expected. If Bethesda wants to shit out awful ruinations of the STALKER series to take money from tasteless fanboy idiots, well, I won't stop them. In fact, I almost want it to happen just so I can see how hilariously terrible the result is.

STALKER on an even less stable engine, with Gamebryo's trademark shitty combat (it was terrible even in NV, since they had to work with that awful engine, but it's not even good in TES games - the combat in Skyrim is an uninspired yawn-fest), with the heavy-handed fanservice "OH COOL" subplots that made FO3 even worse than it already was, and with talentless writers and not-particularly-versatile artists trying to emulate the post-Soviet feeling. It would be the funniest clusterfuck ever.

[DarkHalo003]

I cannot recommend New Vegas Bounties (http://newvegas.nexusmods.com/mods/37310) enough. It's great, it's well-written, the voice acting is quite good let alone for a mod, and it has the same little tongue-in-cheek references as the base game does without heading into FO3 ridicu-shit territory.


.
I've already played them. Both of them. They're definitely awesome. There are several great mods out there, but really NV is a dead game after putting in nearly 130 hours, even with mods. And 130 hours isn't high for WRPG games at all to begin with. I was just disappointed with how the game became so small when it should have been far larger, which is probably what nags at me most: New Vegas should have been 5x the size it was for what it was throwing at you. I've put in almost 200 hours of Skyrim and I'm still finding new places and the modding community is incredibly vibrant. There's also only been one DLC not even released to PC yet. Speaking of which, that was another problem with NV: the DLC was generally poor. Sure, it was a bit of fun, but they were short and lifeless....kind of like New Vegas in general when you think about it.

[rossmum]

Write to Bethesda and demand they get Obsidian to make the next Fallout, on a decent engine, and give them as long as the team needs. It won't happen, but hey, at least you can say you tried.

[DarkHalo003]

Write to Bethesda and demand they get Obsidian to make the next Fallout, on a decent engine, and give them as long as the team needs. It won't happen, but hey, at least you can say you tried.
Well, the problem with saying that their current tech sucks is that it's getting better with every release. The Skyrim engine is gobs better than the NV engine in so many ways. The only problem currently is that it doesn't handle large ESP files well, which may actually be because space is reserved for DLC. Honestly, the biggest concern is whether or not Bethesda is going to make the next Fallout the Fallout Online game that's rumored for a 2015 release.

[Warsaw]

Every Bethesda game is still atrociously ugly out of the box.

=|

[Higuy]

Skyrim was beautiful, I dont know how you could call it ugly. Fallout 3 was though, and so was NV.

[=sw=warlord]

Skyrim was beautiful, I dont know how you could call it ugly. Fallout 3 was though, and so was NV.
I can call it ugly, and some aspects rushed.
Observe
http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197997785641/screenshot/918985153588251070

[Warsaw]

Skyrim was beautiful, I dont know how you could call it ugly. Fallout 3 was though, and so was NV.

Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas are all hideous. Low resolution everything, everywhere, with awful lighting and atmospherics. Worse, Skyrim is the only one in the bunch where the humanoid characters have any remote sense of proportionality.

Seriously, Bethesda either needs to stop making their games look like Open World Call of Duty or license somebody else's engine.

[Higuy]

Yes, so you get a glitch were one log is not textured and therefore the entire game is down right appaulsive to even look at.

[=sw=warlord]

Yes, so you get a glitch were one log is not textured and therefore the entire game is down right appaulsive to even look at.
Would you like me to give more examples?
Had you thought with your brain you would have noticed I linked to several screenshots, not just one.

[DarkHalo003]

Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas are all hideous. Low resolution everything, everywhere, with awful lighting and atmospherics. Worse, Skyrim is the only one in the bunch where the humanoid characters have any remote sense of proportionality.

Seriously, Bethesda either needs to stop making their games look like Open World Call of Duty or license somebody else's engine.
Maybe if all you did was play it on Xbox. Play it on PC and up the graphics on the defaults (or add in some mods) and the game is incredibly beautiful.

[=sw=warlord]

Maybe if all you did was play it on Xbox. Play it on PC and up the graphics on the defaults (or add in some mods) and the game is incredibly beautiful.
Did you look at my link at all?
I run Skyrim on full settings maxed out.

[DarkHalo003]

Did you look at my link at all?
I run Skyrim on full settings maxed out.
Just because a game isn't in CryEngine doesn't mean it's not beautiful. Yeah, Skyrim isn't the best graphical game out there, but it's still a beautiful game.

I also said the tech in Bethesda games was getting way better since New Vegas. That doesn't mean there aren't glitches. Every game has glitches. Bethesda games just have ones that break the game or are random.

REGARDLESS, this isn't about graphics people. When Ross and I were discussing the technical limitations of Bethesda games, we were talking about content and what could have been put into the game to help gameplay.

[=sw=warlord]

Just because a game isn't in CryEngine doesn't mean it's not beautiful. Yeah, Skyrim isn't the best graphical game out there, but it's still a beautiful game.

I also said the tech in Bethesda games was getting way better since New Vegas. That doesn't mean there aren't glitches. Every game has glitches. Bethesda games just have ones that break the game or are random.

REGARDLESS, this isn't about graphics people. When Ross and I were discussing the technical limitations of Bethesda games, we were talking about content and what could have been put into the game to help gameplay.

Doesn't even need to be on par of Cryengine.
Look at this:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cobby87/screenshot/920110421020626021/?
T (http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cobby87/screenshot/920110421020626021/?)hat is using the latest bethseda has, Bioshock which used a modified version of UE2 looked better, on console where as this screenshot is on PC.

[Pooky]

Skyrim's art is awesome, the world is beautiful. You guys are weird.

[TVTyrant]

Skyrim's art is awesome, the world is beautiful. You guys are weird.
.

[Warsaw]

Maybe if all you did was play it on Xbox. Play it on PC and up the graphics on the defaults (or add in some mods) and the game is incredibly beautiful.


Only have this stuff on PC...my Xbox is used only when the PC can't be. Still ugly. There is no argument you can possibly make to defend those awful character models and the textures used on them. Besides, I also said the atmospherics were of-kilter, because they are. Gamebryo has always looked pretty much like the same Quake III spin-off used in the more recent Call of Duty games. It's adequate, but only just barely.



Mods are also an invalid defense. Bethesda doesn't get credit for those because they neither made nor included them out of the box. The fact that the community has to come in behind them to make it look good speaks volumes.

[rossmum]

Well, the problem with saying that their current tech sucks is that it's getting better with every release. The Skyrim engine is gobs better than the NV engine in so many ways. The only problem currently is that it doesn't handle large ESP files well, which may actually be because space is reserved for DLC. Honestly, the biggest concern is whether or not Bethesda is going to make the next Fallout the Fallout Online game that's rumored for a 2015 release.
no, the gamebryo engine (and by extention the new engine which is a tweaked version of gamebryo with a new name) is a gigantic pile of shit

dressing it in pretty clothes does not make it any less a pile of shit

it is technically backwards, it is often unstable, it has very little support for advanced features, and if it wasn't for the engine being such a pile of shit the combat might actually be fun and interesting, but no

[DarkHalo003]

no, the gamebryo engine (and by extention the new engine which is a tweaked version of gamebryo with a new name) is a gigantic pile of shit

dressing it in pretty clothes does not make it any less a pile of shit

it is technically backwards, it is often unstable, it has very little support for advanced features, and if it wasn't for the engine being such a pile of shit the combat might actually be fun and interesting, but no
Although I think calling it a straight up pile of shit is a bit much, the bold is absolutely correct, especially with the weak support for advanced features.

But do you understand what I mean when I say that Fallout Online is a bigger worry than the engine? The ONLINE part is gimmicky enough as is; who knows what cliche tropes and narm they're going to throw into it.

[Higuy]

there is seriously something wrong with you people if you think skyrim is ugly, its a beautiful looking game and in comparison to many others it is far superior.

[=sw=warlord]

there is seriously something wrong with you people if you think skyrim is ugly, its a beautiful looking game and in comparison to many others it is far superior.
Comparing a turd to diarrhea doesn't make the turd not shit, it just means it has more integrity and structure.

[Higuy]

good, so you agree that most other games look like shit and that skyrim is a far superior turd then most others

[=sw=warlord]

good, so you agree that most other games look like shit and that skyrim is a far superior turd then most others
Just because skyrim looks a slight bit better than some of the shit that's floating down the river doesn't mean it looks and smells like roses.

It's got ridiculous physics, Hi there flying bear, it's had some pretty horrible rush jobs done to it, the humanoids in it look better the further away they look from being human.
For instance the elves look like elves but majority of the chicks lack any sort of femininity, in fact I'm reasonably sure Lydias balls dropped at one point whilst I was fighting a mudcrab.

[DarkHalo003]

Just because skyrim looks a slight bit better than some of the shit that's floating down the river doesn't mean it looks and smells like roses.

It's got ridiculous physics, Hi there flying bear, it's had some pretty horrible rush jobs done to it, the humanoids in it look better the father away they look from being human.
For instance the elves look like elves but majority of the chicks lack any sort of femininity, in fact I'm reasonably sure Lydias balls dropped at one point whilst I was fighting a mudcrab.
You must have some pretty high standards.

[=sw=warlord]

I would rather have high standards than get burned for settling for less from having mediocre standards.
It does mean my library is rather low than some people might have but it makes the experience all that bit better.
Less is more in this case.

[Warsaw]

A few of things:

First: I hope that none of you defending Skyrim's (or any other Bethesda title's) stock visuals also call Modern Warfare 3 ugly, because that would be hypocritical. They have very similar values with their visuals.

Second: You guys claim "of course it's not Crysis" as if Crysis is some masterpiece that can't be reached. News flash: Crysis was released in 2007, five years ago. FIVE. YEARS. AGO. Why can't games that come out in 2012 look half as good? Answer: because it's cheaper to keep using the same crap that powered their 2006 game, which was effectively a delayed Xbox 360 launch title.

Three: here's a small list of major games that all look prettier than Skyrim or any Bethesda title ever has:

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat
Metro 2033
Halo: Reach
Halo 3: ODST
Borderlands
RAGE
BioShock
Crysis
Crysis 2
Far Cry
Far Cry 2
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect 3 (yes, even with those women that look like anorexic figurines)
Gears of War 2
Gears of War 3
Battlefield: Bad Company
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Battlefield 3
Unreal Tournament 3

So please...don't tell me that Skyrim looks better than the vast majority of games out there, because it doesn't. Does it have a day/night cycle? Yes. Does it have a weather system? Yes. Does it take place in a world with some nicely varied environments? Yes. However, the lighting sucks, the physics suck, the texturing sucks, and the models suck. Guess which pieces of the puzzle have the most impact.

Oh, and this thread was supposed to be about story, not graphics.

[Pooky]

I really don't give a flying fuck about graphics. Skyrim is beautiful to me because of the scope and the art, not the engine.

By the same token I think Metroid Prime looks better than any of the games you listed, and it came out 10 years ago.

[Warsaw]

Interestingly, I was going to put Metroid Prime on the list but decided to only put games I've played to maintain integrity of the post.

As for the art in Elder Scrolls, I think it's mediocre for the exact same reasons that I think the story is; the two are related.

[Higuy]

wow, that's alot of opinions right there.

the only games on that list that look remotely better than skyrim is probably battlefield 3, crysis 1 & 2, and mass effect 2 & 3.

alot of the games listed are the typical uber grey palette of games where everything is extremely dirty, grimy, and dull. skyrim at the very least has a very nice palette of colors and has a great atmosphere, which most of those games do not. another thing is you seem to be only comparing the technology behind the actual visuals (such as unreal vs. TES engine), not the actual visuals themselves and how they please aesthetically.

[Pooky]

I guess it's just one of those immersion things. You have to be really into what you're doing. The TES series gives me a genuine feeling of exploration matched by few other games.

To me, it's worth putting up with all the bugs and bullshit when you're out exploring and discover a picture perfect vista.

NqFcdLmNhdY

[Warsaw]

wow, that's alot of opinions right there.

the only games on that list that look remotely better than skyrim is probably battlefield 3, crysis 1 & 2, and mass effect 2 & 3.

alot of the games listed are the typical uber grey palette of games where everything is extremely dirty, grimy, and dull. skyrim at the very least has a very nice palette of colors and has a great atmosphere, which most of those games do not. another thing is you seem to be only comparing the technology behind the actual visuals (such as unreal vs. TES engine), not the actual visuals themselves and how they please aesthetically.

I am going to reference you to this link (http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics).

Graphics serve aesthetics.

What I have been talking about until this point is graphics, and I have been since the very start. What I have been talking about are not things that can be opinions unless you happen to think that pixelated looks better than smooth when it comes to lighting and details. And if you want to talk about colours, the only game on that list that is truly a dull grey/brown palette is Gears of War 2. No, seriously, all of the other ones are really quite vibrant, with the next dullest maybe being Metro 2033. I can only surmise that you've not played most of them. Also, no Bethesda game can hold a candle to S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Metro 2033 on atmosphere...nobody does it better than the Russians and Ukrainians.

Still, you haven't addressed my second point. If Crysis, which you have just acknowledged is more aesthetically pleasing than Skyrim, can look as good as it does despite being a five year old game, why then can Bethesda not do the same? Consoles isn't a valid excuse, because Crysis 2 (which you have also acknowledged as looking better) runs just fine without stooping to the same lows as Bethesda's flagship. It's not a question about it being open-world, either.

I'm not knocking Skyrim as a game, I'm knocking it on individual points that are really not its strong suits but you guys seem to be hell-bent on claiming they are. Story and graphics in the game are horrible and have been in every in-house Bethesda game ever made. The play mechanics are very nice, and there is fantastic replay value. The world is large and diverse enough to keep you engaged and lost for hours on end. The game creates some great vistas and the weather system and audio make up for what the graphics capabilities can't deliver on the atmospheric front.

Finally, Pooky, that's modded, says so in the description. It's also not showing the real eyesores: NPCs and other non-environmental objects. My bottom line is that Bethesda should have delivered the kind of fidelity the modding scene has put into the game, out of the box. They are essentially cashing in free labour from the fans. If Crytek can make a game pretty it on their own, they can, too.

[DarkHalo003]

As I said before, I Ross and I weren't even talking about graphics, but the technical support and glitchy tech behind it. Still, Bethesda does have a habbit of making games before they fullproof their bugs, which is an understatement. That we can all agree on.

[Warsaw]

Exactly, but you weren't the one I was really debating with. :p

Now let's get this thread back on about stories in vidja gaemz.

[Higuy]

While my friend and I were discussing future projects with games, we took a look at other games that are modern today, and we see that games today are really engrossing themselves in a form of "interactive movies", more than actual gameplay. For example, the Mass Effect series, its really more or less a very long movie in which you can choose what to say and do, etc. However the games actual gameplay (as in shooting, taking cover, etc), feels somewhat tacked on, and while the game is really focused on that storyline, the gameplay could be really improved to make more so a game.

Same goes for shooters such as Call of Duty. They hardly have any replay value and the gameplay is hardly there, its shooting people easily without skill and then you get these giant cinematic moments that don't differ at all and destroy the replayability because they essentially become the gameplay. Even Battlefields campaign starting to do this at some points. Both games delivered an O.K story, but nothing more than the cliche Americans vs Russians that everyone and there grandpa has heard before.

Overall with games today I think most games have the potential to have very good storylines but they also need a lot of planning beforehand and most can become good as most other movies or complex books. But I think with games it can be hard to introduce the gameplay with some of those things if your trying to add good replayability or exploration, such as games like Fallout or Skyrim becuase then the players actions can very easily and have many variables, it becomes harder and harder to control. Unfortunately studios can't always add extreme amounts of freedom and keep giving lots of choices to players due to time constraits, money, and other resources. It would be nice to see a studio with unlimited freedom/money/people, etc to make a very great game that has a good balance between the gameplay and the storyline.

About a month ago or so there was an idea floating around on this forum for an indie game - we should try to actually start planning to make an actual game that we can all agree on with good aspects of story, gameplay, and aesthetics (and graphics?). That would be something I would like to see, but again, it seems like alot of projects like that are simply pushed aside or fail due to resources, time, and motivation. There is alot of talent on this website and in our community and it should be put towards something more beneficial then just chatting about doing it or reviewing other games goods/bads.

[Pooky]

Finally, Pooky, that's modded, says so in the description. It's also not showing the real eyesores: NPCs and other non-environmental objects. My bottom line is that Bethesda should have delivered the kind of fidelity the modding scene has put into the game, out of the box. They are essentially cashing in free labour from the fans. If Crytek can make a game pretty it on their own, they can, too.

The only thing that's modded is the color palette, which doesn't at all detract from the scene. I have no problem with the lighting in the game, personally.

[Warsaw]

Water was also modded. My problem with the lighting is the same problem I had with the lighting in Call of Duty, but I digress.

Higuy, the big problem that has persisted in video games since day one is that gameplay and narrative are always at odds. By nature, game-play needs to be more open and unpredictable to stay interesting while narrative has to be planned and forced forwards in order to be told. The only way to reconcile the two is to make the game-play become the story and vice versa, and it's a subject I've been working with a lot on my own time.

[rossmum]

'Interactive movie' is basically my blanket slur for games which rely on scripted sequences and tightly-railed level design to force the player down a sequence of events laid out carefully by the developer. Games like CoD and Homefront are pretty much the shining examples of that kind of 'game' design.

[Higuy]

Yeah pretty much, although those games don't allow interaction with the actual story (which I personally find adds alot to the immersion/interactive parts of the game), and the actual gameplay in both games isn't really much of anything worthwhile, such as shooting and FPS tactics (well, at least for CoD, I never personally played Homefront but did read reviews of it).

[rossmum]

Homefront is even better at being CoD than CoD is.

[Pooky]

'Interactive movie' is basically my blanket slur for games which rely on scripted sequences and tightly-railed level design to force the player down a sequence of events laid out carefully by the developer. Games like CoD and Homefront are pretty much the shining examples of that kind of 'game' design.

What about games with tightly railed level design but not scripted sequences? If you're going to start calling Megaman a bad game I'm gonna have to call serious bullshit.

[TVTyrant]

What about games with tightly railed level design but not scripted sequences? If you're going to start calling Megaman a bad game I'm gonna have to call serious bullshit.
Lol my mind went there too.

[rossmum]

What about games with tightly railed level design but not scripted sequences? If you're going to start calling Megaman a bad game I'm gonna have to call serious bullshit.
it depends on the game, the genre, and the tech

making a super tightly-railed shooter is fucking stupid. making a side-scroller where you have something of a set path is just the done thing, because that's how that genre works best.

[Warsaw]

Shooters have historically also worked best with linear design as well. Scripted sequences don't detract from game-play because, by nature, they are not game-play. What does detract from game-play in a shooter is predictability and lack of options. It's the difference between Call of Duty and Metro 2033. Call of Duty will always happen exactly the same way at exactly the same time with exactly the same equipment and with only one avenue for progression. Metro 2033 will present you with the same situations, but your foes will be rearranged, they will react differently, you may not have the ideal equipment for the situation, and you are presented with more than one way to progress. Both are linear, both are on rails, but one takes more thought than the other. Even more, the latter's scripted events are done so seamlessly that it's hard to tell that they are scripted on the first run through the game, as it should be.

So yes, tightly-railed can work and isn't "fucking stupid." What is stupid is making the play sections of the game as minimally interactive as possible (*coughBF3cough*); the two need not go together.

Also, very few open-type shooters have been successful. The only ones I can think of are Far Cry, Borderlands, and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series. Fallout 3 doesn't count because it's more of an RPG and the shooting mechanic relies on dice rolls in the background. Crysis also idoesn't count because it sn't open, it's just a really wide foot path. I guess you can count the ArmA series, but it is very different from the shooter norm; it's a sim more than it is a game.

The bottom line is that games aren't being made to tell a story and stories aren't being made to move games along. The two components are being developed exclusive from one another and we wind up with shit like Spec Ops and Call of Duty. That's the fucking stupid part.

[rossmum]

scripted sequences detract from gameplay by disrupting it, if not removing it entirely. watching as the game makes you do something is not exactly playing, is it?

ps, metro was a good game based on atmopshere, in terms of actually 'being a game' it was okay but decidedly worse than games like stalker which are far less constrained by nature. if you need the game to give you a strict path to follow, then you may as well watch a movie or play space invaders, since you don't want mental engagement. the reason so few open world shooters were successful is because they are so fucking rare.

[Warsaw]

I don't think you understand the facets that comprise "game-play." It's more than just giving you a path to follow. So what if the general direction the game is forcing you to go is north? There are lots of things to do on your way. Do you take the sewers or do you take the tracks? Do you want to move up silently or go in guns blazing? Do you want to try to preserve as many lives as possible or do you just not give a fuck? Do you try to gain good karma or bad to influence the ending? If all you want to do is kill things, does it matter whether you do it on rails or do it in a box? It's all the same mess, isn't it? There is plenty of choice in a game like Metro. Halo 1 is the same way. The final outcome of the game isn't the only thing that determines play. So what if Halo blows up in the end regardless, I still had lots of things for me to do, lots of ways for me to do them, and all the time in the world to do it.

Also, pure open-world shooters are rare because they generally suck. Borderlands is open in the narrowest of terms. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is just a set of deceptively small box levels with a story that is still on rails; you just get the choice to ignore it if you wish. Comparing Metro and S.T.A.L.K.E.R., they both have the most of same actual play mechanics and options. Metro has the more refined experience, more enticing game world, and better atmosphere. It also has a better story.

What you are after is a "pure game." Personally, I don't care much for games that have no substance to them. It's why I hate Grand Theft Auto, All Points Bulletin, and Saints Row. It's why I'm not much of a fan of early shooters that just drop you into a level with the objective "kill shit, reach exit" and that's it. I want to play a game that justifies the things I actually do. I want to see what the results of my actions are.

If you just want pure play, go play multiplayer. Why just run around an empty world killing game AI that have zero hope of defeating you when people offer a much more compelling challenge?

[Pooky]

it depends on the game, the genre, and the tech

making a super tightly-railed shooter is fucking stupid. making a side-scroller where you have something of a set path is just the done thing, because that's how that genre works best.

Well, I don't think perspective really has anything to do with openness.

Open world Sidescroller:

http://i.imgur.com/k6bKV.jpg


Also, very few open-type shooters have been successful.

Open type shooter:

http://i.imgur.com/vTUYq.png

Yes, it's not a completely free roam game, but it's not very linear either.

Both types of game design can work, it mostly comes down to execution. Obviously every type of game won't be for everyone.