381 réponses à ce sujet

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

i dont know maybe to grow as a human being?  To enjoy something more complex than child's entertainment?  You obviously dont care about story or narrative.  Videogames are more than just "game"  theres the "video" part.  games can tell stories and should be telling stories.  Mass Effect 2 suckered in alot of "hardcore gamers" who didnt realise the point of the series was telling a deep scifi story.  bioware was always at its best when they put story above all else.  

your kind is the problem with gaming and why we get garbage like god of war 4 and halo 4 and gears of war 4. 
games have the potential to be more than just a single thing, because they're a conglomerate of narrative elements and potential. 

the problem is we have a generation that doesnt like to read books or watch good movies  >:|

Name the good books or good movies where the final narrative is that the protagonist is simply powerless to win against overwhelming odds.  Now name the good books and movies where the final narrative is that the protagonist, after enduring personal trials, wins against seemingly overwhelming odds.

Hmm.  I wonder why one outnumbers the other?  Would, for example, Shawshank Redemption be as good or as popular a movie if Andy simply dies in prison and the Warden gets away with his crimes?

I like reading books and watching movies.  When I want to do that, I read books and watch movies.  When I want to play a videogame, as opposed to WATCH a videogame, I want to enjoy the PLAYING part.

The rest of your post doesn't even make sense.  So a game that is fun to play but doesn't have a good story is garbage?  Okayguy.

I don't even know where to begin with... okay.  There's the "video" part.  What relevance does that have?  All "video" means is that it's a visual form of media.  "Video" doesn't have any intrinsic meaning towards narrative.  

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 06:18 .

[AlanC9]

KLGChaos wrote...

That's the whole reason I play video games-- for FUN. If I just want to feel, I'll read a book or watch a movie

So games are simply a ... lower form of entertainment than books or movies?

But this whole line of argument is getting a little unrelated to ME. Shepard wins, guys.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mars 2013 - 06:21 .

[M Hedonist]

It didn't leave one with so much a feeling of sadness as one of complete and utter emptiness. You've spent so much effort, only to get that feeling of abandonment.
You can't know how it feels if you've played the EC. There's just nothing comparable to actually living through the original endings, and I don't mean just watching them on Youtube. You'd have to have played through the trilogy, only to be left with a hundred questions and not a single answer, to truly know how it felt. That's just not possible anymore, knowing that EC exists now.

The original endings were a sloppy, bare-bones excuse of an ending, a souless piece of media that served no point but to end the game. EC actually has some effort put into it.

Modifié par Sauruz, 12 mars 2013 - 06:22 .

[KLGChaos]

AlanC9 wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...


Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

I thought that was a problem with the SM, myself

And honestly, I wish we could go back to those old days at times. I'd rather have two options with black and white than just one option of grey.

Don't you mean three options of grey and one black?

I was just talking about color options. In earlier games, there were good and bad endings (or good and evil), though there could be multiple versions of each. Nowadays, it's ALL one solid color of grey... I also wouldn't consider Refuse as "black" as you do set the next cycle up to win, so in a way that's grey as well, albeit a darker shade.

I just don't see why they had force 3 (4 with EC) bittersweet endings down everyone's throats when they could have really run the gamut from good to bad, like they promised all along. They could have one of the grey options be canon if they wanted, that's fine. But when ending a series that focuses so much of player interaction and choice, I just can't believe how they dropped the ball when it came to giving real choice in the end. Me getting a happy end or someone else getting a bleak end won't affect another person getting a bittersweet end. That's what roleplaying is all about. If people feel forced into playing a certain way just because there is a happy end, it shows me more about them than it does the game.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

That's the whole reason I play video games-- for FUN. If I just want to feel, I'll read a book or watch a movie. But when I'm playing a game, I do so because I ahve fun with it. For example, I'm a huge fan of Dead Island. The story and characters are horrible, but I have a lot of fun with the game play, which keeps me coming back.

I'm not saying game should be before story. But it should be JUST AS IMPORTANT as the story is. Otherwise, you're just better off going with a different medium. If playing a game is tedious, then it detracts from everything else. The only thing I felt with ME3's endings was digust because there weren't options for all types of players like they promised.

And a narrative can be fun AND still make you feel. The first Star Wars for instance or the Avengers movie... both were extremely fun movies that made you feel triumphant. A story doesn't have to be depressing to be good, which seems to be the common thought among the emo generation these days.

what you're saying is you want all games to be one single thing and never evolve to be something more meaningful to culture and humanity as a whole.  thank you for ruining the potential of the gaming industry. 

the thing that games can do that other medium cant is that its a realtime experience.  its able to have user driven pacing and variable elements.  a film is always going to be the same passive experience.  a book is never going to not be a book.  a game can be an immersive experience that allows you to explore and feel the story at your discretion.  no other medium can do that.

what i'm saying is games SHOULD NOT have a should.  games need to be capable of filling different holes or we just have a ton of gaps outside of a specific target audience.  :/

"emo generation these days" why dont you try "adults who like real stories"  aka: people who have been reading books and going to theatre since the rennaesance and beyond.  Comedy and Tragedy are the basis of storytelling.  "depressing stories" arent about feeling sad.  they're about empathy and self reflection.  they're about understanding things about the human condition and learning about people through narrative.

i dont need a ****** to enjoy a story.  :/  stories arent about shoulds and pandering, they're about goals and intent.  they're about connecting an audience to a vision and giving them a new experience.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 06:21 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

No not because it was sad OP, but because it was moronic.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 12 mars 2013 - 06:38 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...


Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

I thought that was a problem with the SM, myself

The choices were simplistic, but it was on teh right track.

Do the work, make the "right" choices, and you can have a happy (or happyish) outcome.

ME3 gave us the Ghostbuster choice: "Choose the form of your Destuctor!"

[TheRevanchist]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 they didnt understand the idea of an enemy that is better than you in every way and impossible to take down because they're used to winning videogames all the time.  :/

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

Why in the world would you play a game that wasn't fun?  Note that fun does not necessarily happy.  Fun can be challenging a la Dark/Demon's Souls.  But fun is fun.  If I'm not enjoying the game... well, I have better things to do with my time and with my money to play a videogame that I'm not having fun with.  

To act otherwise strikes me as slightly masochistic, though to each their own.

i dont know maybe to grow as a human being?  To enjoy something more complex than child's entertainment?  You obviously dont care about story or narrative.  Videogames are more than just "game"  theres the "video" part.  games can tell stories and should be telling stories.  Mass Effect 2 suckered in alot of "hardcore gamers" who didnt realise the point of the series was telling a deep scifi story.  bioware was always at its best when they put story above all else. 

your kind is the problem with gaming and why we get garbage like god of war 4 and halo 4 and gears of war 4. 
games have the potential to be more than just a single thing, because they're a conglomerate of narrative elements and potential. 


the problem is we have a generation that doesnt like to read books or watch good movies  >:|

I'll have you know there is no God of War 4...Ascension is a another prequal. And Halo 4's narrative is actually really good, it actually humanizes Chief beyond the books. Also...sorry but this concept of "your an immature moron unless you like tragedty and deep self reflection" is nothing but arrogance on your part. Things like LoTR are not tragety's, they arent meant for self reflection, but they are still hailed has masterpieces. Things dont need to be "GRRR GRIMDARK" to be powerful and meaningfull...thats just delusional thinking at it's worst.

Modifié par kylecouch, 12 mars 2013 - 06:31 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

i dont know maybe to grow as a human being?  To enjoy something more complex than child's entertainment?  You obviously dont care about story or narrative.  Videogames are more than just "game"  theres the "video" part.  games can tell stories and should be telling stories.  Mass Effect 2 suckered in alot of "hardcore gamers" who didnt realise the point of the series was telling a deep scifi story.  bioware was always at its best when they put story above all else.  

your kind is the problem with gaming and why we get garbage like god of war 4 and halo 4 and gears of war 4. 
games have the potential to be more than just a single thing, because they're a conglomerate of narrative elements and potential. 

the problem is we have a generation that doesnt like to read books or watch good movies  >:|

Name the good books or good movies where the final narrative is that the protagonist is simply powerless to win against overwhelming odds.  Now name the good books and movies where the final narrative is that the protagonist, after enduring personal trials, wins against seemingly overwhelming odds.

Hmm.  I wonder why one outnumbers the other?  Would, for example, Shawshank Redemption be as good or as popular a movie if Andy simply dies in prison and the Warden gets away with his crimes?

I like reading books and watching movies.  When I want to do that, I read books and watch movies.  When I want to play a videogame, as opposed to WATCH a videogame, I want to enjoy the PLAYING part.

The rest of your post doesn't even make sense.  So a game that is fun to play but doesn't have a good story is garbage?  Okayguy.

I don't even know where to begin with... okay.  There's the "video" part.  What relevance does that have?  All "video" means is that it's a visual form of media.  "Video" doesn't have any intrinsic meaning towards narrative.  

My point is that people like you are pigeonholing games and demanding other forms of games not exist because you want "fun games".  You dont want any other kind of game to exist. 

The Walking Dead isn't "Fun game" but its still amazing and pushed the genre forward in new ways.

not every game has to be the same thing

[Iakus]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

You're forgetting that this is both a game and a story, and it needs elements of both.  This is not an interactive novel any more than it's an action-shooter, this is a role-playing game.

And as a choice-based rpg, it behooves the developers to offer players a choice in the ultimate fate of the protagonist.  Player agency was an important selling point here.

And games that invoke negative emotions in players probably don't last very long, however well-crafted.

[KLGChaos]

AlanC9 wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

That's the whole reason I play video games-- for FUN. If I just want to feel, I'll read a book or watch a movie

So games are simply a ... lower form of entertainment than books or movies?

Good job putting words in my mouth! People seem to do that a lot around here. I said if I JUST want to feel. That doesn't mean games don't make me feel. But they are more than just a narrative-- they are an interactive medium as opposed to a passive one, especially a game series like Mass Effect where I control the direction of the story and my character's development. The story in these games is as much part of the gameplay as shooting enemies is. If anything, video games can be a higher form of entertainment, which can combine the fun interactivity of games with the narrative of a good story developed through your choices. Many of Bioware's games have done just this.

If a game has a single narrative path, then having the story go in a certain direction is fine. Like a Final Fantasy game. It's like an interactive movie where you're choices may not matter much and the characters are developed along a pre-determined path which leads to a pre-determined end, but is moving and emotional in it's own right. Though you're having fun playing the game, you're more of a passive observer when it comes to the story.

However, in a game where your choices matter, you're no longer just a passive observer. You're crafting the story, shaping the outcome. The story becomes part of the gameplay itself and if it ends up going along a path you don't like, especially when you're consistently promised that your actions would lead to a tailored outcome for your character, that part of the gameplay stops being fun.

I'm not saying every game needs a happy ending. I'm a huge fan of the Silent Hill series and those games were extremely thought-provoking and bleak. Then you ahve games like Limbo and Journey which are beautiful works of art as well as fun games. But when a game is about choices and the player crafting the story, then there should be an ending for each type of player. They don't have to cater to everyone, but covering all the bases should be a priority.

Modifié par KLGChaos, 12 mars 2013 - 06:41 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

iakus wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

You're forgetting that this is both a game and a story, and it needs elements of both.  This is not an interactive novel any more than it's an action-shooter, this is a role-playing game.

And as a choice-based rpg, it behooves the developers to offer players a choice in the ultimate fate of the protagonist.  Player agency was an important selling point here.

And games that invoke negative emotions in players probably don't last very long, however well-crafted.

THE WALKING DEAD

thats my answer to every gripe you just levied.  The walking dead has no real player agency, yet people loved it.  You make choices, but the story drives the characters.  The story comes first and even though its a tragedy people still came away from the game feeling good about it.

let more games than one kind exist.  "it needs to have" is just a narrow veiwpoint.  There are games that put game first, let there be game sthat put story first.  You cant tell a good story if you're hamstrung by giving positive userfeedback all the time.  :/

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 12 mars 2013 - 06:38 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

geceka wrote...

KLGChaos wrote...

Well, considering it IS a video game, it's to be expected, don't you think? When you beat a game and still felt like you lost... well, it's no longer fun.

It's part of the problem with video games trying so hard to be "artistic" that they forget that they're still games and people play them to win.

Yes, but has any Mass Effect ever been a game you either "win" or "lose"? Most modern games already defy these categories somewhat. This not Pacman anymore. 

Actually, yes... ME2. I did the Suicide Mission without losing a single person.

And honestly, I wish we could go back to those old days at times. I'd rather have two options with black and white than just one option of grey.

This exactly.

Yes, modern games and modern movies both feel like having an actual ending is "cliche".

How many movies in the past 10 years have ended with a sudden cliffhanger after the credits (or sometimes before the credits) leaving the entire ending in doubt?

I hate the trend, personally.  When I read a book, or watch a game, or watch a movie, I want a conclusion.  Not being able to conclude your work isn't hip, or revolutionary, or edgy.  It just tells me you didn't know how to write a conclusion.  Or that you're setting me up for a money-grabbing sequel.

terminator 2 is a real easy answer.  alien is another.  i dont even have to dip into anything obscure to answer that question.

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

My point is that people like you are pigeonholing games and demanding other forms of games not exist because you want "fun games".  You dont want any other kind of game to exist.  

The Walking Dead isn't "Fun game" but its still amazing and pushed the genre forward in new ways.

not every game has to be the same thing

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about besides being condescending.

1.  The Walking Dead is a fun game.  That you don't consider it "fun" is more a commentary on your narrow-minded view of story-telling and videogames than any objective merit.  Just because a game is point-and-click doesn't mean it can be fun or enjoyable.  Just because a game has a good story doesn't mean it can't be fun or enjoyable.  You're the only one who thinks the two are mutually exclusive.

2.  The Walking Dead is also, from start to finish, a point-and-click adventure game.   To that end, "revealing" the story is the whole point of the game.  The "game" part comes in creating the story a la Choose Your Own Adventure Book.  It would be just as inappropriate if, 10 minutes from the end, The Walking Dead abandoned the story-telling and inserted a twitch shooter.

3.  Who said every game has to be the same thing?  I only want Mass Effect 3's ending to be the "same thing" as the other 99% of Mass Effect 1-3.

4.  Other games can exist and should exist.  No one is saying they shouldn't... well, except for you.  By your logic, Tetris is the worst videogame of all time because it doesn't have a narrative and doesn't lead to personal growth and doesn't lead you to be a better person, etc.  Chess is probably the second worst game of all time.  Man.  Third... maybe Angry Birds. 

[jumpingkaede]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

terminator 2 is a real easy answer.  alien is another.  i dont even have to dip into anything obscure to answer that question.

Terminator 2 ended with John Connor and Sarah Connor defeating the T-1000 and having hope for the future.  A future in which John Connor is the leader of the human resistance.  Did you watch a totally different movie where T2 ended with the T-1000 killing John Connor or something?  It's not a cliff-hanger ending because the story is resolved.  T2 wasn't about the human resistance in the future (a subject of later films).

Alien ended with Ripley killing the alien.  Alien is Ripley's story of surviving the alien "attack".  Ripley is lost in space but her story involving the aliens is ended.

...

A cliffhanger nonsense ending would be T2 ending with John Connor huddled in the corner while more T-1000s appear.  Or Alien ending with a teaser of more aliens hiding in the space ship.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 06:40 .

[Maverick827]

moater boat wrote...

It's obvious that the OP doesn't actually want answers or an explanation of what people dislike about the ending. Anyone can tell that the entire point of this post is to allow him to feel superior to others. It's really quite simple. He feels that if he can handle something that others can't then he is superior in some way. In this case he has decided that the problem was the fact that the endings were "sad", so by being able to accept a "sad" ending that other people were supposedly upset about he is trying to convince himself that he is more tough and stronger-willed than others.

But here's the rub, people that actually ARE tough, strong-willed, and able to deal Iwith sadness don't need to convince themselves, and they CERTAINLY don't need to pick fights with other people to try to prove that they are. The only logical conclusion is that the OP is, in fact, a very sad person in real life, and in order to combat this he puts on this air of bravado that allows him to ignore glaring inconsistencies in logic and storytelling, and reduce everything to a one dimension scale of "happy" or "sad". Then, by placing things on the sad end of the spectrum and proclaiming loudly how he is not saddened, he is able to lie to himself quite thoroughly. Unfortunately for him, he may be fooling himself, but he isn't fooling everyone. I, for one, see right through it. And the fact that someone deludes themselves in such a way is more sad than any video game could ever be.

I never said I wasn't saddened by the ending.  I said that a sad ending isn't a "bad" ending or a "fail" or whatever other brospeak was used over this last year to insult it.

I am very sad about the ending.  Even if Citadel was post-Earth content, literally ending the series with a party, I would still be sad.  I'm sad when I finish a good book.  I'm sad when a TV series that I like ends.  I have no problem admitting when I am sad just like you, apparently, have no issues revealing how much of an **** you are.

I've been reading some valid criticisms about the ending today.  If you feel like you have a valid criticism, ask yourself this: do you, to this day, **** about the ending on GameSpot threads about unrelated EA news?  Do you give Mass Effect 3 a 0/10, with pithy comment about how you would "give it lower" if you could?  Do you call people who do like the ending "tards" or use similarly childish language? If not, then congratulations, you are obviously not the demographic I was referring to.

Modifié par Maverick827, 12 mars 2013 - 06:45 .

[Iakus]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

iakus wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

it makes me sick to my stomach to read crap like this.

Videogames will never be anything more than low grade entertainment if people keep putting "Game" before "Story"

Stories arent supposed to be fun they're supposed to make you feel.  you're basically saying it needs to be fun so that its still a game.  that goes against the core of narrative in general.

You're forgetting that this is both a game and a story, and it needs elements of both.  This is not an interactive novel any more than it's an action-shooter, this is a role-playing game.

And as a choice-based rpg, it behooves the developers to offer players a choice in the ultimate fate of the protagonist.  Player agency was an important selling point here.

And games that invoke negative emotions in players probably don't last very long, however well-crafted.

THE WALKING DEAD

thats my answer to every gripe you just levied.  The walking dead has no real player agency, yet people loved it.  You make choices, but the story drives the characters.  The story comes first and even though its a tragedy people still came away from the game feeling good about it.

let more games than one kind exist.  There are games that put game first, let there be game sthat put story first.  You cant tell a good story if you're hamstrung by giving positive userfeedback all the time.  :/

But the Walking Dead, while it "tailored itself" to your choices, had one story and one outcome.  You're only "choice" was determining what kind of protagonist starred in it.

Yes, more than one type of game exists.  But Mass Effect was advertised as a game where the player's choices shaped the outcome.  And the examples set by ME1 and ME2 was the story could end on  happier or sadder note, depending on your choices. 

If you tell the audience that you get to make choices, and those choices affect the outcome you gotta be prepared to back those statements, because statements like that create a degree of expectation, especially in the third game of a trilogy.

Games that put story first are adventure games like The Walking Dead.  Or maybe some action games like Alan Wake.  Role-playing games, which rely more on input from the player have a far more cooperative aspect to them.  So sorry, feedback comes with the territory for this genre.

Modifié par iakus, 12 mars 2013 - 06:45 .

[AlanC9]

KLGChaos wrote...

I just don't see why they had force 3 (4 with EC) bittersweet endings down everyone's throats when they could have really run the gamut from good to bad, like they promised all along. They could have one of the grey options be canon if they wanted, that's fine. But when ending a series that focuses so much of player interaction and choice, I just can't believe how they dropped the ball when it came to giving real choice in the end. Me getting a happy end or someone else getting a bleak end won't affect another person getting a bittersweet end. That's what roleplaying is all about. If people feel forced into playing a certain way just because there is a happy end, it shows me more about them than it does the game.

So if a player really wanted to have his Shepard make a horrible mistake and screw the galaxy, he could do that? I don't think that would be a satisfying choice to make. Neither do you, but of course it isn't your problem since you wouldn't make such a choice anyway.

Do any games actually ever "run the gamut from good to bad" as a matter of player choice,  rather than player competence or player completionism? I can't think of any. The KotOR DS ending is good if you're playing DS, the LS ending is good if you're playing LS. The player picks whichever ending he thinks will be "good" in DA:O; he never picks an option because it's less than good.

[cerberus1701]

Eterna5 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

So the ending sucks now cause it's sad? How about the ending just sucks cause it's stupid as hell?

Are we now arguing that Casper the genocidal ghost that got thrown at us the very last minute after annoying us with the idiotic dream sequences that you can't even skip, is good writing?

The hell people...

Leviathan forshadows him, EC explains him as well. If you still don;t get it, you may be stupid. 

Leviathan does not foreshadow him because I don't believe it was more than a kernel of an idea by the time the game was released.

Padding and justifying him after the fact is not foreshadowing.

Modifié par cerberus1701, 12 mars 2013 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Yes, more than one type of game exists.  But Mass Effect was advertised as a game where the player's choices shaped the outcome.  And the examples set by ME1 and ME2 was the story could end on  happier or sadder note, depending on your choices. 

I didn't see different notes in ME1's finale. They were all pretty happy.

ME2, sure. But like I said earlier, I consider getting an optimal ending in ME2 a problem with the design.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Do any games actually ever "run the gamut from good to bad" as a matter of player choice,  rather than player competence or player completionism? I can't think of any. The KotOR DS ending is good if you're playing DS, the LS ending is good if you're playing LS. The player picks whichever ending he thinks will be "good" in DA:O; he never picks an option because it's less than good.

My Cousland did the Dark Ritual
My Surana redeemed Logain
My Marahiel let Alistair sacrifice himself
My Aeducan took teh final blow.

WHich one got the "good ending"?

[AlanC9]

cerberus1701 wrote...
Padding and justifying him after the fact is not foreshadowing.

Someone came up with the phrase "retroactive foreshadowing."

[jumpingkaede]

In summary:

- Every game should be a point-and-click adventure like The Walking Dead.

- If you think only one type of game should exist you're preventing the growth of the medium.

- Games like God of War or HALO or Gears of War shouldn't exist.

Modifié par jumpingkaede, 12 mars 2013 - 06:58 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jumpingkaede wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

My point is that people like you are pigeonholing games and demanding other forms of games not exist because you want "fun games".  You dont want any other kind of game to exist.  

The Walking Dead isn't "Fun game" but its still amazing and pushed the genre forward in new ways.

not every game has to be the same thing

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about besides being condescending.

1.  The Walking Dead is a fun game.  That you don't consider it "fun" is more a commentary on your narrow-minded view of story-telling and videogames than any objective merit.  Just because a game is point-and-click doesn't mean it can be fun or enjoyable.  Just because a game has a good story doesn't mean it can't be fun or enjoyable.  You're the only one who thinks the two are mutually exclusive.

2.  The Walking Dead is also, from start to finish, a point-and-click adventure game.   To that end, "revealing" the story is the whole point of the game.  The "game" part comes in creating the story a la Choose Your Own Adventure Book.  It would be just as inappropriate if, 10 minutes from the end, The Walking Dead abandoned the story-telling and inserted a twitch shooter.

3.  Who said every game has to be the same thing?  I only want Mass Effect 3's ending to be the "same thing" as the other 99% of Mass Effect 1-3.

4.  Other games can exist and should exist.  No one is saying they shouldn't... well, except for you.  By your logic, Tetris is the worst videogame of all time because it doesn't have a narrative and doesn't lead to personal growth and doesn't lead you to be a better person, etc.  Chess is probably the second worst game of all time.  Man.  Third... maybe Angry Birds. 

1. Yeah it was real fun when carly died despite your best efforts.  it was real fun when vergil stabs you in the back and steals your boat even if you were as nice as possible to him.  it was super fun when the stalker kidnaps clem despite you NOT raiding his car.  it was fun when no matter what you do lee gets bit and dies, leaving clementine to fend for herself in a world that wants her dead.

But mass effect has to have a happy ending.  (do you get it yet?  Do you understand why I brought up walking dead?  it wasnt about gameplay it was about a story that controls the player inspite of player choice being well recieved)

2. Its really funny you say that because the walking dead has twitch shooter elements in chapters 3 and 4.  Nearly every chapter has a really bad shooting segment.

3. thats funny because mass effect 2 wasnt the same as mass effect 1.  it was COMPLETELY different.  Mass Effect 1 ends with "We barely managed to survive and have no idea how we're going to handle the reapers in force."  mass effect 2 ends with "I killed all the badguys and saved all the goodguys high five guys we're invincible"  When I beat ME1 i was SCARED of the threat.  one reaper has stronger than an entire fleet, how were we going to handle MORE than one reaper?  we didnt even beat soverign fair and square, shepard had to cheat it to win.  In Mass Effect 2 I shot a baby reaper in its glowing weak spot until it blew up.  YEAH THOSE ARE THE SAME THING

4. By my logic more than one kind of game can exist and be good.  That is the complete opposite from me saying "Game before story is bad".  I said "Story before Game" is just as good as "Game before Story"

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Do any games actually ever "run the gamut from good to bad" as a matter of player choice,  rather than player competence or player completionism? I can't think of any. The KotOR DS ending is good if you're playing DS, the LS ending is good if you're playing LS. The player picks whichever ending he thinks will be "good" in DA:O; he never picks an option because it's less than good.

My Cousland did the Dark Ritual
My Surana redeemed Logain
My Marahiel let Alistair sacrifice himself
My Aeducan took teh final blow.

WHich one got the "good ending"?

They all did. Even if your Cousland thought the DR was a bad idea and did it anyway, so far he seems to have gotten away with it. My point was that there's no gamut because they're all good.

Edit: but yes, a player can make his character pick an ending that his character thinks isn't a good one, out of stupidity, cowardice, or whatever else the player wants to inflict on the PC.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 mars 2013 - 06:54 .