6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Shimmer_Gloom]

What, if the opening was 'silk toilet paper,' why did you even play the rest of the game? If was so horrible why would you not return it to the store? Could it be that you are being hyperbolic?

That was a rhetorical question of course you are being hyperbolic.

Also, you didn't answer my question very well. Having the Normandy destroyed and killing Shep sets up the entire game. And you have not given an alternative that even comes close to giving us the same result.

"If a game cannot be judged by it's plot, characters, or pacing, it will never be considered a form of art." I disagree COMPLETELY. My entire argument is that we judge a game by different criteria.

Would you judge elements of Form (a three dimensional element) in a comic book (a two dimensional medium)? Of course not! Sculpture is judged by different criteria than 2d art.

So, in the grand scheme of things, plot is VERY unimportant in a game. Game-play, immersion, difficulty progression, illusion of choice, world building... the lexicon of game critisism is completely different than literature and it is as it SHOULD BE.

Games are experiences. Not stories.

[dreman9999]

Biotic Sage wrote...

100k wrote...

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

Yes, I do. Almost every game I play, I critique. I understand that critiquing isn't for everyone, but it's something that I enjoy doing -- not for the sake of causing trouble, but for the sake striving to some day reaching a level akin to Citizen Kane, Manhatten, or Godfather.

And guess what? I still enjoy video games. So much, that I'm willing to come onto a forum to discuss them. 

MGS3 (Subsistence) is my all time favorite game. I think it's wonderfully written, acted, voiced, played, visualized, lengthed, and tied together. I also think that it's melodramatic, sometimes boring, and slightly egotistical of itself. 

But it remains my favorite game of all time.

I'm a skeptical person too, and I don't engage in any narrative (movie, book, video game, whatever) without taking part in critical analysis.  A lot of my friends say I need to just stop thinking and enjoy things, but in my opinion approaching narratives with a critical mindset serves to enhance enjoyment of worthy works; I can easily accept the tradeoff of lessened enjoyment of unworthy works because of this.  Completing college with a degree in English/Film certainly doesn't pay the bills, but without my education I wouldn't feel the level of personal and emotional satisfaction in my life that I currently do.

All this being said, I am the first person to condemn a work when I have engaged with it and it has failed to live up to scrutiny.  Mass Effect does not fall into this category. 

No, it isn't "The Godfather" or "Citizen Kane" of video games, but then again, are either of these movies indisputably the best of all time?  Citizen Kane was a groundbreaking, technical achievement that redefined the art of filmmaking.  However, was I as emotionally moved by Citizen Kane as I was by Disney's Up?  Not even close.  Does that mean Up is a better movie?  No, but it is better in that particular aspect.  When judging narratives, it's hard to quantify and place numerical rankings of better to best because so much of their success depends on what we, the viewer, bring with us in order to construct our own personal understandings of the narrative.  Mass Effect succeeds in so many areas where other video games have not even dreamed to go that it deserves recognition in much the same way that Citizen Kane does.  The art direction, score, voice acting, level of player choice (spanning across 3 games no less), and now the gameplay refinements in ME2 and ME3 add up to a cinematic experience that is a milestone achievement for video game narrative, and this cannot be simply dismissed because the plot elements are not 100% cohesive.  If you scrutinize anything enough, something will not add up: I had to learn the hard way to realize when to rightfully dismiss a work based on gaping errors/lack of quality and when to push aside nitpicking in order to achieve a level of enjoyment.  Because if we can't enjoy anything, then what's the point of critically analyzing narrative to begin with?

*Claps slowly............

[100k]

@Biotic Sage --

To clarify, I didn't mean that Citizen Kane > UP (which I also enjoyed more than Kane), or that The Godfather is the best film ever created -- that much has always been subjective to the critical viewer.

I merely meant that those movies (including UP) are recognized as "art", and excellent films -- certainly not by everyone, but by many many people who see them. On top of that, films like Citizen Kane helped pave the way for modern film making today, along with the movies that came before it, and after it.

That's what I want for Mass Effect, and video games in general. I want a game to come along that an 8th of the population of Earth talks about at some point.

You are right that if we scrutinize certain elements of media hard enough, things just won't add up. I completely agree. That's why I try not to concern myself with doing what Smudboy does, like evaluating Tali's geth-information time line -- or if I do evaluate minor things like that, I just try to go with the simplest expansion popular to convey the same general idea (like Shepard's brain maintaining all of its information via the Prothean cipher). Stuff like that I don't think is out of line, because it doesn't subtract anything from the narrative -- instead adding to it with a very simple explanation.

But some things I do consider worthy of heavier scrutiny. For instance, Shepard thinking about death. To have there be a game spanning side quest involving Shepard debating what it means to live and die is, I think, essential, because death is the one thing that scares, baffles, or confuses all life (even Shepard) -- and almost every work of art/artist.

To put it simply, and everyone, please forgive me with dealing in absolutes, when death is involved in a plot -- you absolutely, as a writer, cannot belittle it. Your story WILL suffer if you do.

And you are also right when you talk about the difference between ME and other games. ME is an RPG. What a film maker has to cram into two hours of film, a game developer can put into 30 hours of game play. When you have that kind of time to kill, worrying about how cool an explosion looks, or how sexy a certain character looks should be small time compared to the themes, worlds, stories, and characters you've also built.

[dreman9999]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What, if the opening was 'silk toilet paper,' why did you even play the rest of the game? If was so horrible why would you not return it to the store? Could it be that you are being hyperbolic?

That was a rhetorical question of course you are being hyperbolic.

Also, you didn't answer my question very well. Having the Normandy destroyed and killing Shep sets up the entire game. And you have not given an alternative that even comes close to giving us the same result.

"If a game cannot be judged by it's plot, characters, or pacing, it will never be considered a form of art." I disagree COMPLETELY. My entire argument is that we judge a game by different criteria.

Would you judge elements of Form (a three dimensional element) in a comic book (a two dimensional medium)? Of course not! Sculpture is judged by different criteria than 2d art.

So, in the grand scheme of things, plot is VERY unimportant in a game. Game-play, immersion, difficulty progression, illusion of choice, world building... the lexicon of game critisism is completely different than literature and it is as it SHOULD BE.

Games are experiences. Not stories.

x

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:53 .

[Moonshadow_Dark]

God his voice is sleep inducing. People actually watched all his videos?

[Notlikeyoucare]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What I meant about holding games to a different standard was this: Literature has Plot, Characterization, pacing... these are the chief concerns Video Games are considered with an entirely different set of criteria,

So, the question isn't 'does the plot make sense,' but 'do the elements of plot foster an enjoyable environment to play in.' Games are played, not watched. What I mean by this is especially apparent for Mass Effect because plot points are so heavily tied to player choice.

Having Shepard 'die' helped make the game better because it gave us a reason to start from scratch. And it did it in a incredibly dramatic way. This is the same reason Ubisoft destroyed Ezio's villa in the opening of AC:Brotherhood. They needed to 'reboot' the story.

And they did it in an excellent way too. Remember walking to get Joker and gazing overhead to see the entire top half of the Normandy gone? It wasn't a cutscene. You had to actually walk through a gutted Normandy. This is something the player experiences and it is THAT experience that gives us a trauma to hold onto throughout the game. The Collectors aren't just shadowy badguys, they are the Shadowy badguys that gutted your ship and left you for dead.

What better way to open a video game than that?

Without that scene the Thanix blasting apart the Collectors would have meant nothing.

If a story has no logic or reason why would I even bother payiing attention? You might enjoy the Uncharted series, good writing, and exciting over- the-top action to boot.

[dreman9999]

100k wrote...

@Biotic Sage --

To clarify, I didn't mean that Citizen Kane > UP (which I also enjoyed more than Kane), or that The Godfather is the best film ever created -- that much has always been subjective to the critical viewer.

I merely meant that those movies (including UP) are recognized as "art", and excellent films -- certainly not by everyone, but by many many people who see them. On top of that, films like Citizen Kane helped pave the way for modern film making today, along with the movies that came before it, and after it.

That's what I want for Mass Effect, and video games in general. I want a game to come along that an 8th of the population of Earth talks about at some point.

You are right that if we scrutinize certain elements of media hard enough, things just won't add up. I completely agree. That's why I try not to concern myself with doing what Smudboy does, like evaluating Tali's geth-information time line -- or if I do evaluate minor things like that, I just try to go with the simplest expansion popular to convey the same general idea (like Shepard's brain maintaining all of its information via the Prothean cipher). Stuff like that I don't think is out of line, because it doesn't subtract anything from the narrative -- instead adding to it with a very simple explanation.

But some things I do consider worthy of heavier scrutiny. For instance, Shepard thinking about death. To have there be a game spanning side quest involving Shepard debating what it means to live and die is, I think, essential, because death is the one thing that scares, baffles, or confuses all life (even Shepard) -- and almost every work of art/artist.

To put it simply, and everyone, please forgive me with dealing in absolutes, when death is involved in a plot -- you absolutely, as a writer, cannot belittle it. Your story WILL suffer if you do.

And you are also right when you talk about the difference between ME and other games. ME is an RPG. What a film maker has to cram into two hours of film, a game developer can put into 30 hours of game play. When you have that kind of time to kill, worrying about how cool an explosion looks, or how sexy a certain character looks should be small time compared to the themes, worlds, stories, and characters you've also built.

If that your point then I state again that most of the point in the stor complined about are due to the lack of understanding of the lore, character motivation, and story. The thing most people get hung up on is the intro and end of the game...which the results of the intro is not done with in the story. And the end....was rushed with the start of the last mission and end of it with the boss.
Alot of the things complained about can be easily understord if they read the lore and try to understand the motive of the character aka why they are doing what they are doing.
Smugboy just can' erase himself form that equation, to him it will alway be what he would do.....No why the characters aredoing it.

[GunMoth]

The Seventh Seal. Cough.

Anyway, quit comparing film to games. Yes, they share the same artistic principles. Yes, they have similar ways to visually and verbally portray a message or convey emotion, but that's it.

Film has a rich history filled with trial, error, and technological advancements. Video games that have a cinematic narrative haven't been around that long and pretty much rely on cliches of film to ensure their success. The Godfather (and many other films being mentioned) were great because of a lot of the techniques being developed during that period. Same with the Seventh Seal. Its usually a film that is innovative and knows how to apply the elements of design and communication that usually stand out to us. 

The reason why I like Smud is because he is NOT harping on the presentation, but rather the writing. The character archs, the story archs. Sure, he has "gameplay fixes" but those can easily be fixed with the advancement of technology. The thing that is infuriating is that there are tons of writing techniques that are already available and are simply forgotten in ME2. The importance of the main plot and how the characters should help drive that plot. (Since "characters" are technically an element of design in film. He points out Mordin is a great example of this and how characters like Thane for example are so far removed that the driving force of the story tends to feel disjointed.)

Modifié par GunMoth, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Il Divo]

100k wrote...


Not yet. The best games out there are the equivalent of maybe Kill Bill. Great, but not superb.

GTA IV
KOTOR I + II
MGS3 + Peace Walker
Ico + Shadow of the Collossus

Those are currently on my best titles of all time.

I thought this was kinda funny, since I just finished watching both Kill Bill volumes again today. And great movies, by the way.

But I agree with you and Whatever that while video games are moving closer and closer, they haven't quite reached the top tier, which is typically reserved for the greatest of movies. The gap is growing narrower every day, as games like Deus Ex: HR demonstrate, but there is still some work left to be done. I think, at its very core, games must be created with plot first and gameplay secondary, rather than the other way around if they are ever to achieve the same recognition which films have attained.

[dreman9999]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What, if the opening was 'silk toilet paper,' why did you even play the rest of the game? If was so horrible why would you not return it to the store? Could it be that you are being hyperbolic?

That was a rhetorical question of course you are being hyperbolic.

Also, you didn't answer my question very well. Having the Normandy destroyed and killing Shep sets up the entire game. And you have not given an alternative that even comes close to giving us the same result.

"If a game cannot be judged by it's plot, characters, or pacing, it will never be considered a form of art." I disagree COMPLETELY. My entire argument is that we judge a game by different criteria.

Would you judge elements of Form (a three dimensional element) in a comic book (a two dimensional medium)? Of course not! Sculpture is judged by different criteria than 2d art.

So, in the grand scheme of things, plot is VERY unimportant in a game. Game-play, immersion, difficulty progression, illusion of choice, world building... the lexicon of game critisism is completely different than literature and it is as it SHOULD BE.

Games are experiences. Not stories.

Game may not maditoraly need stories but they can still use them. What makes games different from other mediums is the fact that they are interctive. Think of it as instalation art. You become part of the story by interacting with event of the story. The diuloge wheel in itself is a game. The only thing that hold games back in general is the fact that they also have to be enjoyable.
A game can have a great story but suffers because of bad game play.
The thing with ME and ME2 is that story and gameplay is so well ballances they are almost one of the same with only the fact that what you do in combat is out side of the normal story desistions.
Even if plot is not need for a game, if you make the plot the game like ME, the game becomes about the story.

[100k]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Would you judge elements of Form (a three dimensional element) in a comic book (a two dimensional medium)? Of course not! Sculpture is judged by different criteria than 2d art.

So, in the grand scheme of things, plot is VERY unimportant in a game. Game-play, immersion, difficulty progression, illusion of choice, world building... the lexicon of game critisism is completely different than literature and it is as it SHOULD BE.

Games are experiences. Not stories.

When the game's developers use words like "cinematic" and "blockbuster", yes, I do judge it in a similar fashion to film -- obviously not the same exact fashion as I recognize the liberties that a game has that a film doesn't (mainly runtime).

But when I game embrasses the "experience" as well as the story, like Ico, It really works for me. 

So I would completely disagree with your last statement.

Film thrives off of visual, vocal, musical, and thematic elements woven together. The viewer watches the static film (of excellence) unable to change the fate of the character's fate, or the villian's motive.

Games thrive off of visual, vocal, musical, and thematic elements that are woven together by the player. The player progresses through the game of their own accord-- ultimately to the same end as the film viewer. 

So both genres, especially gaming, can take tips from the other.

@ Il Divo

I completely agree. 

Modifié par 100k, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Yeah, Uncharted is a blast. But it's hardly got a better track record when it comes to wonky plot twists. That doesn't stop it from being a game of near unparalleled quality though.

And that is, again, my point. Games make crappy literature in the same way that comics make crappy sculpture.

[Biotic Sage]

100k wrote...

@Biotic Sage --

To clarify, I didn't mean that Citizen Kane > UP (which I also enjoyed more than Kane), or that The Godfather is the best film ever created -- that much has always been subjective to the critical viewer.

But some things I do consider worthy of heavier scrutiny. For instance, Shepard thinking about death. To have there be a game spanning side quest involving Shepard debating what it means to live and die is, I think, essential, because death is the one thing that scares, baffles, or confuses all life (even Shepard) -- and almost every work of art/artist.

To put it simply, and everyone, please forgive me with dealing in absolutes, when death is involved in a plot -- you absolutely, as a writer, cannot belittle it. Your story WILL suffer if you do.

I wouldn't take offense if you said Citizen Kane is better than Up.  Both are worthy in their own ways, and on different days of the week I might change my mind as to which one I consider "better."

I agree that underplaying Shepard's death was definitely a missed opportunity in ME2.  There could have been some great philosophical stuff in the game dealing with this issue.  Even so, I wouldn't judge it too harshly until we see how Shepard's story plays out in ME3 and how relevant his death/resurrection is to the endgame (could be completely irrelevant for all I know, and then I will judge harshly).

You make very good points, and I agree with all of them.  Mass Effect's strengths still far outweigh its weaknesses (thus far without playing ME3); the immersion and cinematic experience is on a level that I just don't see with other games (Metal Gear and a few others as exceptions).

[Biotic Sage]

dreman9999 wrote...

Game may not maditoraly need stories but they can still use them. What makes games different from other mediums is the fact that they are interctive. Think of it as instalation art. You become part of the story by interacting with event of the story. The diuloge wheel in itself is a game. The only thing that hold games back in general is the fact that they also have to be enjoyable.
A game can have a great story but suffers because of bad game play.
The thing with ME and ME2 is that story and gameplay is so well ballances they are almost one of the same with only the fact that what you do in combat is out side of the normal story desistions.
Even if plot is not need for a game, if you make the plot the game like ME, the game becomes about the story.

Good point about interaction.  Viewer (player) agency and gameplay elements are the only things that separate modern video games from film.

Novels - Idea
Radio - Idea and Sound
Graphic Novels/Comics - Idea and Visual
Movies/TV - Idea, Visual, Sound, Motion
Video Games - Idea, Visual, Sound, Motion, Interaction

This is not to say that novels are inferior to video games, just that you are experiencing a greater amount of stimuli with video games.  Novels can actually be considered superior by many because it is more cognitively demanding, in that the reader must see the words, comprehend the language, and construct the narrative completely within the mind.  Just depends on personal taste.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:06 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

@biotic sage: For real though. If we can't call Mass Effect 2 a good game then I have no idea what qualifies. I'd even go so far to call Mass Effect 2 a extraordinarily good game.

[100k]

dreman9999 wrote...
If that your point then I state again that most of the point in the stor complined about are due to the lack of understanding of the lore, character motivation, and story. The thing most people get hung up on is the intro and end of the game...which the results of the intro is not done with in the story. And the end....was rushed with the start of the last mission and end of it with the boss.
Alot of the things complained about can be easily understord if they read the lore and try to understand the motive of the character aka why they are doing what they are doing.
Smugboy just can' erase himself form that equation, to him it will alway be what he would do.....No why the characters aredoing it.

The thing is, lore is only acceptable if it's there. Motivation is only good if its explored. 

We don't know what "lore" allowed Shepard to survive. Similarly, we don't know what motivation exists for Shepard care/not care about death.

I'd love to know how Shepard felt about dying in ME2. But I can't do that if it's never presented. And yes, naturally, some people will place themselves into the persona of Shepard and thus create their own motives. But without the ablity to voice those motives, it doesn't matter. Shepard's just "thinking" them -- when actually expressing them is highly important in a visually driven form of media, like a game.

And the reason people get hung up on the beginning and ending of the game is because these parts act as the opening and closing of the story. You want viewers/players to care, so do it right away.

[Iakus]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What, if the opening was 'silk toilet paper,' why did you even play the rest of the game? If was so horrible why would you not return it to the store? Could it be that you are being hyperbolic?

That was a rhetorical question of course you are being hyperbolic.

Also, you didn't answer my question very well. Having the Normandy destroyed and killing Shep sets up the entire game. And you have not given an alternative that even comes close to giving us the same result.

"If a game cannot be judged by it's plot, characters, or pacing, it will never be considered a form of art." I disagree COMPLETELY. My entire argument is that we judge a game by different criteria.

Would you judge elements of Form (a three dimensional element) in a comic book (a two dimensional medium)? Of course not! Sculpture is judged by different criteria than 2d art.

So, in the grand scheme of things, plot is VERY unimportant in a game. Game-play, immersion, difficulty progression, illusion of choice, world building... the lexicon of game critisism is completely different than literature and it is as it SHOULD BE.

Games are experiences. Not stories.

I'm being hyperbolic because it's late, I'm tired, and probably shouldn't be responding at this point.  If I ofended, apoligies, though I don't apologize for having these views.

Alternatives to death have been given many times, varying from Shepard only being moistly dead (in a coma) to being a prisoner, being laughed out of Council space, kidnapped by the Shadow Broker, you name it.  That s just stuff I can recall off the top of my head.

Games as art:  There are many types of games.  And these types are all judged differntly.  But many games, particularly rpgs, and especially Bioware games have story as a very strong part.  It is in fact, an interactive piece of literature (not capital-L literature, of course)  Try and say that Jade Empire's story is unimportant.  Or Deus Ex: Human Revolution.  Red Dead Redemption.  It's integral to these games.  No story, no game.  Some goes for Mass Effect.  He ehole pont of importing saves is to continue the story.  

Maybe I wouldn't judge the latest Madden or Diablo games on the same basis as Mass Effect.  But Mass Effect is supposed to be closer to the cinematic experience of a movie or a tv show than those are.

I don't understand how you can say plot is unimportant.  Plot runs through all these things:  immersion, progression, choice, or the illusion therof. , worldbuilding.  All of those things have pieces of the plot in them.  And the plot provides the reason for all these things to exist.

Games are experiences.  Games are stories.  Games are experiencing stories.

Edit:  And  I played the rest of the game because it was a Bioware game, and kept expecting there to be some kind of payoff for the whole death deal.  Alas, shortly after Horizon, I realized that this was all there was to the game:  Recruit, loyalty, recruit, loyalty, recruit, loyalty.  There was no payoff to be had.

Modifié par iakus, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Notlikeyoucare]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Yeah, Uncharted is a blast. But it's hardly got a better track record when it comes to wonky plot twists. That doesn't stop it from being a game of near unparalleled quality though.

And that is, again, my point. Games make crappy literature in the same way that comics make crappy sculpture.

I thought the plot twists were handled rather well.

The Undead Spaniards in the first have perfect build up. The writings on the wall, the half chewed corpse, Eddie explaining Drake isn't the only one killing his men.

The Yeti ice monsters in 2 had similar build up. Lampshaded the objects we see and then Schafers statement. Later on, we see what he means.

What makes these things work is that the characters react to them, it shows that this is beyond the normal, and makes the characters organic to the story. The character development in 2 in particular is extremely well done. We get hints of these characters backstories without ever being told, all while we're doing the business of the plot. We learn more about who these characters are from the choices they make. The same thing with Drake and Eddie

There are few problems like Flynn magically appearing on the train, Or the contrived way of them just happening to end up at the right temple. However, they aren't magically pulled out of nowhere, they aren't illogical, because we the audience constantly know how A leads to B.

[100k]

iakus wrote...

Edit:  And  I played the rest of the game because it was a Bioware game, and kept expecting there to be some kind of payoff for the whole death deal.  Alas, shortly after Horizon, I realized that this was all there was to the game:  Recruit, loyalty, recruit, loyalty, recruit, loyalty.  There was no payoff to be had.

*deflects incoming counter argument*

"Shepard was on a mission. He's a soldier. He doesn't have time to contimplate things like death."

Yes he does.

*Especially directed at people who claim that there's time for stuff to develop off-camera*

[100k]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Yeah, Uncharted is a blast. But it's hardly got a better track record when it comes to wonky plot twists. That doesn't stop it from being a game of near unparalleled quality though.

And that is, again, my point. Games make crappy literature in the same way that comics make crappy sculpture.

I thought the plot twists were handled rather well.

The Undead Spaniards in the first have perfect build up. The writings on the wall, the half chewed corpse, Eddie explaining Drake isn't the only one killing his men.

The Yeti ice monsters in 2 had similar build up. Lampshaded the objects we see and then Schafers statement. Later on, we see what he means.

What makes these things work is that the characters react to them, it shows that this is beyond the normal, and makes the characters organic to the story. The character development in 2 in particular is extremely well done. We get hints of these characters backstories without ever being told, all while we're doing the business of the plot. We learn more about who these characters are from the choices they make. The same thing with Drake and Eddie

There are few problems like Flynn magically appearing on the train, Or the contrived way of them just happening to end up at the right temple. However, they aren't magically pulled out of nowhere, they aren't illogical, because we the audience constantly know how A leads to B.

What I love about Uncharted (2) is that even though it's cliche, its so well organized and excecuted.. Hell, my city's paper had a giant end of year article on it's entertainment page. They basically said that it was way better than the most recent Indiana Jones, and was a good step for maturing gaming.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Of course plot is an element of this particular game (where as in something like Super Mario Brothers it is not). But it hardly is the most important element. Especially since it is so heavily shaped by the player. I would say that 'story beats' are more applicable than 'plot' to a game.

Plot is how the events shape the STORY. 'Story beats' (my term feel free to make your own) are about how the events shape the player's experience.

And as a way to shape the player's experience, destroying the ship (especially the Normandy, one we are so invested in emotionally) sets up our entire motivation for the game. And what better way to do that than to have the player LITERALLY go down with the ship.

I think it is a perfect way to start a game. And as I said before it sets up a great payoff for our confrontation with the Collectors at the end. Now, how do we get the same experience without scuttling the Normandy? And would it be as affecting to destroy the Normandy without going down with the ship?

I say no. I say the experience of dying on the Normandy after saving your crew is a wonderful way to show us who Shepard is, what the Collectors are capable of, and giving us a reason to recruit a new crew. And like I said, man is that payoff good if you are able to give the Collectors a taste of their own medicine at the end.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Can't believe an actual plot discussion topic made it to 100 on here.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[mystia]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Can't believe an actual plot discussion topic made it 100 on here.

well that is the bsn after all:pinched:

[100k]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Of course plot is an element of this particular game (where as in something like Super Mario Brothers it is not). But it hardly is the most important element. Especially since it is so heavily shaped by the player. I would say that 'story beats' are more applicable than 'plot' to a game.

In a series now popular for spanning three games, plot + story = very important. Paramount, I'd say.

Plot is how the events shape the STORY. 'Story beats' (my term feel free to make your own) are about how the events shape the player's experience.

I think the term you're thinking of is "plot points"?

[Notlikeyoucare]

100k wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Yeah, Uncharted is a blast. But it's hardly got a better track record when it comes to wonky plot twists. That doesn't stop it from being a game of near unparalleled quality though.

And that is, again, my point. Games make crappy literature in the same way that comics make crappy sculpture.

I thought the plot twists were handled rather well.

The Undead Spaniards in the first have perfect build up. The writings on the wall, the half chewed corpse, Eddie explaining Drake isn't the only one killing his men.

The Yeti ice monsters in 2 had similar build up. Lampshaded the objects we see and then Schafers statement. Later on, we see what he means.

What makes these things work is that the characters react to them, it shows that this is beyond the normal, and makes the characters organic to the story. The character development in 2 in particular is extremely well done. We get hints of these characters backstories without ever being told, all while we're doing the business of the plot. We learn more about who these characters are from the choices they make. The same thing with Drake and Eddie

There are few problems like Flynn magically appearing on the train, Or the contrived way of them just happening to end up at the right temple. However, they aren't magically pulled out of nowhere, they aren't illogical, because we the audience constantly know how A leads to B.

What I love about Uncharted (2) is that even though it's cliche, its so well organized and excecuted.. Hell, my city's paper had a giant end of year article on it's entertainment page. They basically said that it was way better than the most recent Indiana Jones, and was a good step for maturing gaming.

Mass Effect is cliche in many ways as well. I don't see how things being cliche diminish their value. Like you said, organised, and well executed. The writing is short, consise and clear. Making for a good story.

Drake's Deception looks like they are going to mess with a few cliches and tip them on their head. I cannot wait to see what they do with Drake's character and how it ties into Sir Franscis.