162 réponses à ce sujet

[Xannisel]

Okay, the idiot who wrote the article needs to read Aristotle's 'Poetics' in order help remove his head from his ****.

[Biotic Sage]

nelly21 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

That article is describing a very nebulous concept. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it wasn't describing anything - he just didn't think Deus Ex had a good story, and tricked himself into thinking it was just a "plot", not a story.

That's what it pretty much boils down to haha.

Just because I don't like someone's personality, doesn't mean I can claim they do not have a personality.

But Jensen's lack of personality IS his personality. Jensen's transformation is allegory for the humanity he has lost in his transformation. 

I honestly believe that there is a reason Jensen's monotone voice contrasts so vividly against the rest of the cast. He is the fusion of man and machine, the poster child for transhumanism. Perhaps, if Eidos would have brought in better voice actors, that point would have been more obvious.

Oh, I wasn't trying to apply this statement to Deus Ex, I was attempting to use it as an analogy:

Just because I don't enjoy a narrative, doesn't mean I can claim that there is no narrative.
...to...
Just because I don't like someone's personality, doesn't mean I can claim this person has no personality.

Sorry about that, I should've been clearer and probably should've picked an analogy with content that couldn't be easily confused with content from the article.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[Morroian]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

"Good stories give us characters who win our emotional investment, who develop over the course of the narrative, and who shed light on some aspect of ourselves. Good stories have a palpable dramatic arc that builds toward a climax. And by filling out these requirements, good stories also teach us something about the world."

Oh, like the Mass Effect series?

"What we need—what we all crave—are stories that tap into real humanity, stories that drive their ever-developing characters toward climaxes that challenge them as people, providing a resolution that means something."

Wow, he must really like the Mass Effect games.

"Plenty of very good games, like Mass Effect 2, barely even have a plot—just a collection of side quest-ish missions that lead to an end boss."

Oh.

Well... never mind, then.

(What is it with this aversion to episodic storytelling?)

IMHO ME2 is a perfect example of what he's talking about and there's no inconsistency at all. Yes some of the sidequests do feature elements of good stories that he's talking about eg. Mordin and Jack, but the game as a whole doesn't. If Mordin's story was expanded into 1 game on its own it would be a fantastic example of what he's talking about. 

As for ME2 being episodic, its structured episodically but this acts against the overall plot of the game which demanded something more focussed. I know a lot won’t agree but DA2 is an example of an episodic game which works because there isn’t an overriding plot or antagonist for the whole game.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:11 .

[nelly21]

Biotic Sage wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

That article is describing a very nebulous concept. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it wasn't describing anything - he just didn't think Deus Ex had a good story, and tricked himself into thinking it was just a "plot", not a story.

That's what it pretty much boils down to haha.

Just because I don't like someone's personality, doesn't mean I can claim they do not have a personality.

But Jensen's lack of personality IS his personality. Jensen's transformation is allegory for the humanity he has lost in his transformation. 

I honestly believe that there is a reason Jensen's monotone voice contrasts so vividly against the rest of the cast. He is the fusion of man and machine, the poster child for transhumanism. Perhaps, if Eidos would have brought in better voice actors, that point would have been more obvious.

Oh, I wasn't trying to apply this statement to Deus Ex, I was attempting to use it as an analogy:

Just because I don't enjoy a narrative, doesn't mean I can claim that there is no narrative.
...to...
Just because I don't like someone's personality, doesn't mean I can claim this person has no personality.

Sorry about that, I should've been clearer and probably should've picked an analogy with content that couldn't be easily confused with content from the article.

Ah. Gotcha. 

[AdmiralCheez]

Morroian wrote...

IMHO ME2 is a perfect example of what he's talking about and there's no inconsistency at all. Yes some of the sidequests do feature elements of good stories that he's talking about eg. Mordin and Jack, but the game as a whole doesn't. If Mordin's story was expanded into 1 game on its own it would be a fantastic example of what he's talking about. 

As for ME2 being episodic, its structured episodically but this acts against the overall plot of the game which demanded something more focussed. I know a lot won’t agree but DA2 is an example of an episodic game which works because there isn’t an overriding plot or antagonist for the whole game.

*scratches head*

Okay, so it's all right for some games to remove the focus from the core plot, but not okay for others?

[Il Divo]

I couldn't take the idiot seriously after he claimed that Portal had a much better story. It  has the bare minimum requirements for a story, but there was very little depth to it. It really sounds like he was looking for an excuse to outline his favorite storylines in gaming, compared to others.

[RocketManSR2]

I repeat, ME2 is the middle of one, long story arc. You cannot judge ME2 until 3 is released and the arc is complete.

[AdmiralCheez]

Il Divo wrote...

I couldn't take the idiot seriously after he claimed that Portal had a much better story. It  has the bare minimum requirements for a story, but there was very little depth to it. It really sounds like he was looking for an excuse to outline his favorite storylines in gaming, compared to others.

Probably.

[Whatever42]

Actually, I don't really disagree with much of what the writer is saying.

If I were reading a book or watching a movie, I would want to see the story develop the characters, to develop their relationships. I would want to see internal character struggles and the outcome of those struggles on the character and on the character's relationships.

ME2 does have some character development and some interesting internal character struggles. However, the impact on those characters is fairly minimal. Oh, there is some good stuff in there. Miranda softening and developing a relationship with her sister, for example. However, for my tastes, there was far too little of that in ME2. Too little interaction with Shepard and almost no relationships with other characters in the game. There were too many characters and too little depth and development.

And, of course, Shepard had no real development because of the nature of the character and game.

And yes, we haven't completed the story yet but the arcs for many of the characters are likely finished and we really didn't see much.

I think Bioware is aware of this. Even though it was a different team, and DA2 was a flawed game, I think they tried to make the story and characters far deeper. And ME3 promises fewer characters. So, again, I don't think this writers is totally out to lunch.

And I know some stories are just fine being focused on the plot and action, but personally, I don't think those are the best stories.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:40 .

[Biotic Sage]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Actually, I don't really disagree with much of what the writer is saying.

If I were reading a book or watching a movie, I would want to see the story develop the characters, to develop their relationships. I would want to see internal character struggles and the outcome of those struggles on the character and on the character's relationships.

I was focusing more on the author confusing definitions of plot, narrative, and story.  It seems like the author doesn't really know the definitions of each, as he claims that ME2 does not even have a story.  Of course it has a story.  Whether it's good or not is a different matter.

[Whatever42]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Actually, I don't really disagree with much of what the writer is saying.

If I were reading a book or watching a movie, I would want to see the story develop the characters, to develop their relationships. I would want to see internal character struggles and the outcome of those struggles on the character and on the character's relationships.

I was focusing more on the author confusing definitions of plot, narrative, and story.  It seems like the author doesn't really know the definitions of each, as he claims that ME2 does not even have a story.  Of course it has a story.  Whether it's good or not is a different matter.

Fair enough. I definitely agree that his examples were silly and he was confused. I just don't really disagree with his main point of what makes stories great. 

Blade Runner could be a good story just focusing on the hunt for the androids. However, it was the characters and their internal struggles and development that made the movie great for me.

[Homebound]

lets give videogames another 2000 or so years. I heard literature had a headstart.

[nelly21]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Actually, I don't really disagree with much of what the writer is saying.

If I were reading a book or watching a movie, I would want to see the story develop the characters, to develop their relationships. I would want to see internal character struggles and the outcome of those struggles on the character and on the character's relationships.

ME2 does have some characters and some interesting internal character struggles. However, the impact on those characters is fairly minimal. Oh, there is some good stuff in there. Miranda softening and developing a relationship with her sister, for example. However, for my tastes, there was far too little of that in ME2. Too little interaction with Shepard and almost no interaction with other characters in the game. There were too many characters and too little depth and development.

And, of course, Shepard had no real development because of the nature of the character and game.

And yes, we haven't completed the story yet but the arcs for many of the characters are likely finished and we really didn't see much.

I think Bioware is aware of this. Even though it was a different team, and DA2 was a flawed game, I think they tried to make the story and characters far deeper. And ME3 promises fewer characters. So, again, I don't think this writers is totally out to lunch.

Again, transition is not necessary to establish depth. There are plenty of examples in literature, film and even videogames. 

In ME 2, the player has direct control over character transition. I can prevent Garrus from killing Sidonis (thereby making him move past his lust for vengeance) or not. Does Garrus have no depth?

[Xarathox]

Huh, an IGN author that doesn't have an understanding of what it is they're writing? No real suprise there...

[Biotic Sage]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Fair enough. I definitely agree that his examples were silly and he was confused. I just don't really disagree with his main point of what makes stories great. 

Blade Runner could be a good story just focusing on the hunt for the androids. However, it was the characters and their internal struggles and development that made the movie great for me.

I don't disagree with this point either.  Characters are an essential element to any story, and the general rule is: the more interesting the characters, the more interesting the story.

And this is off topic/derailing a bit, but I can't stand Blade Runner as a story.  From a filmic standpoint, it was a great technical achievement and without a doubt a work of art.  The mise-en-scene and the level of detail put into that universe were both awe-inspiring, and even the ethical/philosophical issues it brought up were interesting.  But good lord was it awful haha (imho of course).  It feels like such a chore to get through that quagmire of a movie.  Critics destroyed that movie when it came out, and I think it grew into something of an overrated diamond in the rough because of the aforementioned awe-inspiring elements it contained.  The acting was atrocious, the pacing was tedious, and the plot was bland.

Proceed to mount your defense, but I have spoken my peace.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 07 septembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[Whatever42]

nelly21 wrote...

Again, transition is not necessary to establish depth. There are plenty of examples in literature, film and even videogames. 

In ME 2, the player has direct control over character transition. I can prevent Garrus from killing Sidonis (thereby making him move past his lust for vengeance) or not. Does Garrus have no depth?

True, the character doesn't have to evolve for a story to be good. They can just end up where they started. Although, that usually says something as well and it usually has consquences for the character.

And I do think Garrus is an example of what ME2 could have done better. 

I agree that ME2 did have characters and decent character stories. However, the Garrus story for me was a better example of what they could have done better. Garrus is bent on revenge the whole time. At the end, he either gets it and moves on like it never happened. Or he misses it, accepts it, and moves on like it never happens. 

For me, it was not incredibly satisfying. Some stories were a little better. As I said, the Miranda one was ok because of the relationship with her sister. And the romances developed the LIs somewhat. But DA2, imo, did it better. It had more depth, more development, more relationships, more consquences. 

ME2 would have been better with twice the character development and interaction and half the characters. This isn't a revolutionary opinion, I know. It's been said often on these forums and Bioware has fewer characters in ME3.

And again, we never really see Shepard as a character at all, outside of a couple moments in both games. I know this is intentional and I'm fine with it. But as a character in a story, he/she is practically non-existant.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:01 .

[clerkenwell]

SPOILERS FOR DXHR BELOW

I sympathize with him, because I do believe that the highest class of video game stories have not yet equaled the best examples from other media. And I do give him credit for singling out Red Dead Redemption as one of the best examples of storytelling in video games, though it certainly has its issues as well.

But I get the distinct impression from his article that he is trying to articulate a feeling that he doesn't quite have the words for, a common problem shared by many. I've certainly dealt with it before. So his argument and his criticisms don't really hit home.

Personally, I was rather let down by the story of DXHR as well, though not for many of the same reasons. I actually quite liked Jensen's voice actor; I think he conveyed a good range of emotions convincingly. I think his standout scene was his confrontation with Megan near the end. To say that he didn't have a character arc is just not true. It's not a terribly dramatic arc, but the game takes place over a few days. There's not much room for a major arc. And when it comes to a head, the player decides where Jensen ultimately lands and so the player has to be willing to lose immerse himself in the character a bit in order for it to work. But that's what games are all about. I also think the relationship between Jensen and Pritchard deserves special mention. The player/voice-in-his-head relationship is one with a long pedigree in the world of videogames, and it's been used to good effect before. In DXHR, the way they talk to each other evolves over the course of the story; what starts as an antagonistic back-and-forth becomes an amicable co-dependency. So much so that, at one point, the only person either of them really trusts is the other. I really appreciated that.

Where I found failings in the story of DXHR was where it bowed to the tropes and cliches found in many videogames. Why oh why was it necessary to have the bad guys want to take over the world? The story was plenty engaging when the stakes were corporate greed and political power, colored by a philosophical question mark. The super-villain twist cheapened all of that, though, by conjuring up a black and white villain that had to be stopped. And then they went one step further and introduced an even worse villain in Hugh Darrow who hews so closely to the "Mad Philosopher, Cleanse the World by Fire" bad-guy trope that I literally had to groan out loud. These kinds of stories aren't interesting. They're not challenging. And they are everywhere in the videogame world, Mass Effect included. Can it be done well? Yes, and I think Mass Effect is an example of that. But more often that not it's simply tiresome.

I think that if game developers can find it in themselves to move away from these same old save the world/galaxy stories, they'll find there's plenty of avenues to explore, and storytelling in games will be the better for it.

[AdmiralCheez]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

*valid points about lack of this and that and the other*

The problem is that they had to do that with eleven other people, PLUS tell the main story.

Kind of hard to cram all that into 30 hours.

So really, it's their own damn fault for not cutting some stuff here and there to make room, but I don't blame them for wanting to leave so much of it in.  What was there, despite being incredibly condensed, was good.

A few extra lines of dialogue wouldn't hurt, though.

[Whatever42]

Biotic Sage wrote...

And this is off topic/derailing a bit, but I can't stand Blade Runner as a story.  From a filmic standpoint, it was a great technical achievement and without a doubt a work of art.  The mise-en-scene and the level of detail put into that universe were both awe-inspiring, and even the ethical/philosophical issues it brought up were interesting.  But good lord was it awful haha (imho of course).  It feels like such a chore to get through that quagmire of a movie.  Critics destroyed that movie when it came out, and I think it grew into something of an overrated diamond in the rough because of the aforementioned awe-inspiring elements it contained.  The acting was atrocious, the pacing was tedious, and the plot was bland.

Proceed to mount your defense, but I have spoken my peace.

I loved the movie as a kid almost purely because of Rutger Hauer, I confess. I loved that character in the movie, especially the end when he had to face the absolute hopelessness of his situation.

But I appreciate that movie isn't for everyone.

[Whatever42]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

*valid points about lack of this and that and the other*

The problem is that they had to do that with eleven other people, PLUS tell the main story.

Kind of hard to cram all that into 30 hours.

So really, it's their own damn fault for not cutting some stuff here and there to make room, but I don't blame them for wanting to leave so much of it in.  What was there, despite being incredibly condensed, was good.

A few extra lines of dialogue wouldn't hurt, though.

Totally agree. 100%

I think the writing in ME2 was very good. I'm a rabid fanboy. However, even though I think the writing is great, I think it could have used some help on the direction and editting. 

[looloolooigotsomeapples]

He's basically just written an article that is fundamentally wrong. I'll just leave it at that.

[AdmiralCheez]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Totally agree. 100%

I think the writing in ME2 was very good. I'm a rabid fanboy. However, even though I think the writing is great, I think it could have used some help on the direction and editting.

Totally.

Although for someone with my attention span, it was perfect.

Squadmate: And that's where I learned that I--

Me: KAY BORED NOW WANT TO SHOOT THINGS

Bioware needs to stop marketing to people like me.  See, I'm a moron, and I'm incredibly easy to please.

[Savber100]

jreezy wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I repeat, ME2 is the middle of one, long story arc. You cannot judge ME2 until 3 is released and the arc is complete.

Yes you can.

Oh no you can't! :innocent:

[RocketManSR2]

jreezy wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I repeat, ME2 is the middle of one, long story arc. You cannot judge ME2 until 3 is released and the arc is complete.

Yes you can.

I posted without thinking. You cannot judge ME2 completely until 3 is released. I will say that imo, ME2 did lose focus on the main story. BioWare kind of left themselves in a tough spot after 1. The bad guy fleet is coming, but it would be years before they arrived. BioWare decided on the die/resurrect 2-year time skip. Some liked it, some didn't, as with anything else. As another poster said, there were some very good moments in ME2, but it was on a smaller scale.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:17 .