Il Divo wrote...
Aeowyn wrote...
And yes, before you decide to insult my intelligence, I make sure to read two books per week, so I have read plenty of books in my lifetime.
Pffft, well I read three books a week. With my eyes closed. Bring it on.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Very good moments on a smaller scale indeed. I wonder if ME3 can capture the feeling of making sure are decisions feel more important, important enough that we'll sit and ponder them for a little bit before making a choice. That's why I really liked the Rachni scene on Noveria and choosing between Ashley or Kaidan on Virmire. I actually thought about what choice I should make before I made it for a while. I'm wondering if sacrifice has to be a main component of decisions in ME3 to make sure that they matter. The Virmire thing was a hard choice because no matter what you choose you know you're going to lose something.RocketManSR2 wrote...
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.jreezy wrote...
Yes you can.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.
Walker White wrote...
They believe that, in order for games to be art (or tell a story), the message or voice must be controlled by the author and not the player.
Il Divo wrote...
Notlikeyoucare wrote...
IMO, Ebert is one of the worst critics in existance.
It's hard to describe my feelings towards Ebert. I enjoy his approach to writing reviews, which feels very fresh, but (more often than not) his actual opinion on a movie is very different than my own. Drastically different. I also consider his approach to 'gaming as art' very frustrating.
Aeowyn wrote...
That's quite the feat. Reading with your fingers?
Il Divo wrote...
Define "more serious literature". You might list any number of novels, poems, etc, and say that they are . And I might agree in some cases, or think it's crap in others. However, gamers are not the ones making the claim that literature tells bad stories. Your claim is the other way around.
Essentially, it's the same problem we run into with Roger Ebert, claiming that video games cannot be art, but doesn't want to play any video games to determine the truth of that claim.
Then it's a good thing that Kreia has more to say than a few quotes. Her character does spin an entire philosophy, which includes references to Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Antonio Gramsci (to a lesser extent).
Because he chose to write something about the local mafia in Naples, which is incredibly dangerous, not because he wrote a good story. The Godfather may have drawn inspiration from real life affairs, but it was fiction at its core. Your example only works if we accept that any story has to have a significant effect on society, which (in many cases) relies on stories which may only be relevant to a particular period or a controversial topic.
If I'm not concerned with the current economic crisis sweeping the U.S., gay marriage, or abortion, but in something completely different, my work might not have a significant effect on society. Any number of films, graphic novels, books, or even games can be seen as an exception to this. Outside of inspiring a new "gritty" era of comics, did Watchmen affect society in any significant fashion? No, but that does not negate the well-told story or fantastic set of characters.
I'm not understanding the logic here. Your requirement for a good story seems to be that it results in real-world consequences. I can write a remarkably bad story, but depending on what facts/truths I incorporate might still result in real world consequences. If we're in fascist Germany, I don't need to be a great author to be locked up. I just need to say the wrong thing in front of the government.
What I will agree on is that, if one is attempting to convey a certain idea, a better story might give that idea more weight, because it provides an enjoyable experience.
Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
Define "more serious literature". You might list any number of novels, poems, etc, and say that they are . And I might agree in some cases, or think it's crap in others. However, gamers are not the ones making the claim that literature tells bad stories. Your claim is the other way around.
Essentially, it's the same problem we run into with Roger Ebert, claiming that video games cannot be art, but doesn't want to play any video games to determine the truth of that claim.
Technically everything ever created by men is “art”. Does that mean there is no difference between art? Is a junkie, covered in paint, rolling over a piece of cloth in the same league as a Rembrandt or Da Vinci?Then it's a good thing that Kreia has more to say than a few quotes. Her character does spin an entire philosophy, which includes references to Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Antonio Gramsci (to a lesser extent).
Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Antonio Gramsci’s most famous works are not stories. What you’re saying here is that any story with some quasi-intellectual mumbling becomes “good”.Because he chose to write something about the local mafia in Naples, which is incredibly dangerous, not because he wrote a good story. The Godfather may have drawn inspiration from real life affairs, but it was fiction at its core. Your example only works if we accept that any story has to have a significant effect on society, which (in many cases) relies on stories which may only be relevant to a particular period or a controversial topic.
He wrote about the destructive power of the mafia in his city; he did not make free PR like the Godfather did, celebrating the life of gangsters. When I say the mafia are a bunch of lunatics, they’ll likely have a good laugh about it. But the guy in question wrote stuff that really threatened the mafia, they are afraid of the story this guy has to tell. And AFAIK he did not use real names, he only drew an accurate picture about the impact the mafia has on ordinary people living ordinary lives.If I'm not concerned with the current economic crisis sweeping the U.S., gay marriage, or abortion, but in something completely different, my work might not have a significant effect on society. Any number of films, graphic novels, books, or even games can be seen as an exception to this. Outside of inspiring a new "gritty" era of comics, did Watchmen affect society in any significant fashion? No, but that does not negate the well-told story or fantastic set of characters.
Where do you get the idea I said a “good story” has to have some sort of controversial aspect to it, or has to be about social-economic issues or whatever? That would make someone like Michael Moore a literature genius, no?
There's also a difference between story-telling and the story being told. Bioware is great at story telling, but the stories that are being told in their games are rather simplistic - one wo(man) saving Ferelden or the entire galaxy doesn't sound all inspiring to me. Sounds a lot like your avarange James Bond movie - poor plot, simple story, great action, hot chicks, nice locations, gadgets, funny one-liners, and a cool vilan > et voila, another blockbuster (movie or video-game).I'm not understanding the logic here. Your requirement for a good story seems to be that it results in real-world consequences. I can write a remarkably bad story, but depending on what facts/truths I incorporate might still result in real world consequences. If we're in fascist Germany, I don't need to be a great author to be locked up. I just need to say the wrong thing in front of the government.
What I will agree on is that, if one is attempting to convey a certain idea, a better story might give that idea more weight, because it provides an enjoyable experience.
The greatest story of all times is Jesus’. Why do you think the Bible is still a bestseller? Because of the rather simple stories it tells? Or perhaps because it has something more to say?
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. That sums it up quite well, thanks Plato.
P.S. The greatest stories are timeless, they will be told a hundred years from now, or a thousand or more perhaps. I don’t think anyone will remember (let alone tell the story) of Shepard, Jensen, Gordon or whomever. Does that make their stories “bad”? No, but they’re not good enough to be(come) great. That’s the whole point. A hundred years form now, people will still look in awe at the work of Rembrandt and Da Vinci, they will still be reading the Bible, they will still know about the works of Orwell and Harriet Beecher Stowe – I don’t think they will know the name of Shepard-Commander. Not even if (s)he manages to save the galaxy in part 3 - ungrateful bastards
Notlikeyoucare wrote...
Now I'm convinced you're trolling.
Il Divo wrote...
Walker White wrote...
On the other hand, if you take this argument to the other extreme, games can only tell stories through cut scenes. Any meaningful play choice and you have no story. And most of us who are BioWare fans disagree with this.
While this is the more typical approach in video games (Ex: Halo, Gears of War), it is by no means the only one. Mass Effect features cut-scenes, but most ot the story is told in a manner where the player is treated as an actual character. The same can be said for Portal/Bioshock/Half-Life, where the player is never removed from the perspective of the PC, which is a very different style of story-telling than a cut-scene.
Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...
Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Antonio Gramsci’s most famous works are not stories. What you’re saying here is that any story with some quasi-intellectual mumbling becomes “good”.
He wrote about the destructive power of the mafia in his city; he did not make free PR like the Godfather did, celebrating the life of gangsters. When I say the mafia are a bunch of lunatics, they’ll likely have a good laugh about it. But the guy in question wrote stuff that really threatened the mafia, they are afraid of the story this guy has to tell. And AFAIK he did not use real names, he only drew an accurate picture about the impact the mafia has on ordinary people living ordinary lives.
Where do you get the idea I said a “good story” has to have some sort of controversial aspect to it, or has to be about social-economic issues or whatever? That would make someone like Michael Moore a literature genius, no?
There's also a difference between story-telling and the story being told. Bioware is great at story telling, but the stories that are being told in their games are rather simplistic - one wo(man) saving Ferelden or the entire galaxy doesn't sound all inspiring to me. Sounds a lot like your avarange James Bond movie - poor plot, simple story, great action, hot chicks, nice locations, gadgets, funny one-liners, and a cool vilan > et voila, another blockbuster (movie or video-game).
The greatest story of all times is Jesus’. Why do you think the Bible is still a bestseller? Because of the rather simple stories it tells? Or perhaps because it has something more to say?
P.S. The greatest stories are timeless, they will be told a hundred years from now, or a thousand or more perhaps. I don’t think anyone will remember (let alone tell the story) of Shepard, Jensen, Gordon or whomever. Does that make their stories “bad”? No, but they’re not good enough to be(come) great. That’s the whole point. A hundred years form now, people will still look in awe at the work of Rembrandt and Da Vinci, they will still be reading the Bible, they will still know about the works of Orwell and Harriet Beecher Stowe – I don’t think they will know the name of Shepard-Commander. Not even if (s)he manages to save the galaxy in part 3 - ungrateful bastards
Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:20 .
Walker White wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
Walker White wrote...
On the other hand, if you take this argument to the other extreme, games can only tell stories through cut scenes. Any meaningful play choice and you have no story. And most of us who are BioWare fans disagree with this.
While this is the more typical approach in video games (Ex: Halo, Gears of War), it is by no means the only one. Mass Effect features cut-scenes, but most ot the story is told in a manner where the player is treated as an actual character. The same can be said for Portal/Bioshock/Half-Life, where the player is never removed from the perspective of the PC, which is a very different style of story-telling than a cut-scene.
I know. My point is that the faction making this argument would claim this is not storytelling. If the player can make a choice, there is no authorial voice. And that, in their opinion, is the problem.
Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:14 .
Veex wrote...
The other thing that seems really salient to me is that games tend to offer activities that are in direct opposition to the story the author seems to value. Side quests, player agency, and a myriad of other things can distract from a central plot and make the experience feel more episodic. Player agency in particular is obviously an issue in terms of main character development, especially in RPGs. Many of us value the ability to input some of our own beliefs, thoughts, and biases into a character which limit the developer's ability to write that character along a static path.
Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:34 .
Il Divo wrote...
This post is phenomenal, and this segment in particular demonstrates the worst problem games run into: the gameplay. Plenty of games have great characters, witty dialogue, and an engaging narrative, but all is under the pretense that you must go through an experience which relies on the player engaging in some 2+ hour dungeon of killing things, which (as you say) is at odds with the narrative. The question is: how can the medium move away from this, while still retaining their well-known gameplay?
Il Divo wrote...
Again, you need to demonstrate the connection between "writer being threatened" and "telling a great story". In fascist Germany, I could be imprisoned for the slightest word agains the government. It wouldn't make me a terrific writer. Your writer wrote about an extremely controversial topic in the worst possible location. How is his story "good' as a result (ignoring literary accolades)?
Zu Long wrote...
Bluko wrote...
I mean dealing with the Quarians on Tali's Loyalty Mission was great, but what exactly does it have to do with stopping the Collectors? Or even the Reapers for that matter? Well not a lot unfortunately. See that's my problem with ME2.
One caveat with an otherwise pretty good post- Dealing with the Quarian-Geth problem could very well be CRITICAL when it comes to beating the reapers. Shepard even says so outright in game I believe.
Walker White wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
Walker White wrote...
On the other hand, if you take this argument to the other extreme, games can only tell stories through cut scenes. Any meaningful play choice and you have no story. And most of us who are BioWare fans disagree with this.
While this is the more typical approach in video games (Ex: Halo, Gears of War), it is by no means the only one. Mass Effect features cut-scenes, but most ot the story is told in a manner where the player is treated as an actual character. The same can be said for Portal/Bioshock/Half-Life, where the player is never removed from the perspective of the PC, which is a very different style of story-telling than a cut-scene.
I know. My point is that the faction making this argument would claim this is not storytelling. If the player can make a choice, there is no authorial voice. And that, in their opinion, is the problem.
lobi wrote...
This is a direct result of an existing mature industry forcing it's method onto a new art form. I knew this would happen when I saw courses that removed the word 'Film' and replaced it with 'Game'.
Modifié par lobi, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:02 .
Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...
Why do you think the Bible is still a bestseller?
Relix28 wrote...
"no one could fail to notice its exasperating boss fights"
I stopped right there.
Whoever thinks boss fights in Deus Ex: HR are exasperating, should stop playing video games and should not be taken seriously when talking about video games. What a load of crap.
) but once I got to the first 2 bosses on the hardest difficulty, my reaction was: "Um... that was it? Really? I tossed 3 or 4 land mines at them and they died... took all of 6 seconds and I never fired a single shot... are they getting back up maybe? That must be it! I better hide!"
Hathur wrote...
Relix28 wrote...
"no one could fail to notice its exasperating boss fights"
I stopped right there.
Whoever thinks boss fights in Deus Ex: HR are exasperating, should stop playing video games and should not be taken seriously when talking about video games. What a load of crap.
I have to admit when I first got the game and heard about these "legendarily hard boss fights" I was pretty nervous & excited at the same time.
I'm far from being particularly skilled at shooters (plus I'm a "girl" so I got that against me... durrr!
Frankly I found some of the regular combat far more difficult on the highest setting simply because Jensen dies if more than 4 or 5 bullets hits him... but the bosses? Meh, never died vs them yet. Just grenades or land mines... or Typhoon aug.
Retour en haut
