296 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

crimzontearz wrote...


well yeah but it was always intended to be MP ONLY...it was scrapped with good reason

The fact it was scrapped was one of only the two saving graces of biowares PR at around this time.

[crimzontearz]

FlamingBoy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...


well yeah but it was always intended to be MP ONLY...it was scrapped with good reason

The fact it was scrapped was one of only the two saving graces of biowares PR at around this time.

I would have loved if the made a blood dragon like spin off

[Blade8971]

I wouldn't mind expanding the current ME3 story provided you play as a new character. Playing as an existing and supporting character wouldn't make any sense as you already know their background from the first three games.

[The Heretic of Time]

Sumthing wrote...

Because gameplay is a method of progressing the story. It isn't the core of the game.

It's this twisted and idiotic mindset that turned the game industry to ****. For a long time, video-games used to be about gameplay and the gameplay used to be the core of the game, but a lot of people have seem to forgotten that, which is why so many "games"  these days aren't really games, they're just wannabe-movie "games" with terrible gameplay and way too many lengthy cutscenes.

It boggles my mind. Why do people like you even bother playing video-games? Why not watch a movie instead? Gameplay is the single thing that sets video-games as a medium appart from movies and books. It stands to reason that therefor the gameplay should be the core part of the game. the name should give it away, you PLAY a video-GAME with GAMEPLAY. It's all about the "GAME"  and the "PLAY". There is no "GAME" or "PLAY" in "STORY".

Not to mention that video-games suck as a storytelling medium. 99% or all games on the market have a mediocre story at best. Games with mediocre stories like KOTOR and Mass Effect are considered "the pinnacle of storytelling in video-games", even today. That says something about the poor state of storytelling in video-games.


The sooner this whole "cinematic game" hype blows over, the better. I want my high quality game-experience with high-quality gameplay back.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:53 .

[Ravensword]

Well, the MEU is gonna be rebooted. I think it's reasonable to expect the next ME game to be the next Battlefield Gears of Mass Space Medal of Duty since BW now has a dev that worked GoW, and EAware has shown that they're developing their games to, w/ each game, progressively appeal more to the dudebro demographic.

Modifié par Ravensword, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:21 .

[Iakus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

Because gameplay is a method of progressing the story. It isn't the core of the game.

It's this twisted and idiotic mindset that turned the game industry . For a long time, video-games used to be about gameplay and the gameplay used to be the core of the game, but a lot of people have seem to forgotten that, which is why so many "games"  these days aren't really games, they're just  wannabe-movie "games" with terrible gameplay and way too many lengthy cutscenes.

It boggles my mind. Why  do people like you even bother playing video-games? Why not watch a movie instead? Gameplay is the single thing that sets video-games as a medium appart from movies and books. It stands to reason that therefor the gameplay should be the core part of the game.  the name should give it away, you PLAY a video-GAME with GAMEPLAY. It's all about the "GAME"  and the "PLAY". There is no "GAME" or "PLAY" in "STORY".

Not to mention that video-games suck as a storytelling medium. 99% or all games on the market have a mediocre story at best. Games with mediocre stories like KOTOR and Mass Effect are considered "the pinnacle of storytelling in video-games", even today. That says something about the poor state of storytelling in video-games.


The sooner this whole "cinematic game" hype blows over, the better. I want my high quality game-experience with high-quality gameplay back.

So video games peaked at Missle Command, huh?

This philosophy is why video games as art is a concept that gets laughed at.

I have no love of the recent obsession with "cinematic experience" either, but that's because it interferes with roleplaying as much as it does with gameplay.

Modifié par BioWareMod01, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:57 .

[Bleachrude]

Ah...is this thread going to lead in to the new "Is the Walking Dead an actual game" thread that seems to pop up on every gaming related site eventually...

[Sumthing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

Because gameplay is a method of progressing the story. It isn't the core of the game.

It's this twisted and idiotic mindset that turned the game industry to sh!t. For a long time, video-games used to be about gameplay and the gameplay used to be the core of the game, but a lot of people have seem to forgotten that, which is why so many "games"  these days aren't really games, they're just ******-poor wannabe-movie "games" with terrible gameplay and way too many lengthy cutscenes.

It boggles my mind. Why the f*ck do people like you even bother playing video-games? Why not watch a movie instead? Gameplay is the single thing that sets video-games as a medium appart from movies and books. It stands to reason that therefor the gameplay should be the core part of the game. Hell the name should give it away, you PLAY a video-GAME with GAMEPLAY. It's all about the "GAME"  and the "PLAY". There is no "GAME" or "PLAY" in "STORY".

Not to mention that video-games suck as a storytelling medium. 99% or all games on the market have a mediocre story at best. Games with ******-poor mediocre stories like KOTOR and Mass Effect are considered "the pinnacle of storytelling in video-games", even today. That says something about the poor state of storytelling in video-games.


The sooner this whole "cinematic game" hype blows over, the better. I want my high quality game-experience with high-quality gameplay back.

You're in the wrong place. Go back to COD. I play video games because they enable ME TO AFFECT WHAT HAPPENS.
Never heard of text based adventure games? Gameplay: Some gameplay consists entirely of telling a story. Go play monopoly if you want gameplay with no story.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Not to mention that video-games suck as a storytelling medium. 99% or all games on the market have a mediocre story at best. Games with ******-poor mediocre stories like KOTOR and Mass Effect are considered "the pinnacle of storytelling in video-games", even today. That says something about the poor state of storytelling in video-games.

Games suck as a storytelling medium? Games are really the only storytelling medium where you can see an image of the story, hear the story, and affect the story.  Look at Baldur's Gate, or Planescape: Torment. They have stories that are better than most books. Baldur's Gate 2 created possibly one of the best villains of all time: Jon Irenicus. Planescape: Torment told a deep story with many philosophical parts that wouldn't be possible to tell in such detail in a book or a movie, simply because you are able to ask the questions yourself, rather than having a character you can't control ask questions you don't want to know.  Mass Effect had you go on a journey to save the Galaxy from a mysterious threat. It put you in a world full of rich lore and story.
Games are made for enjoyment. Some people ENJOY a good story. Some people ENJOY being able to control what happens in a good story. Gameplay without a story is gameplay without a point.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

It boggles my mind. Why the f*ck do people like you even bother playing video-games? Why not watch a movie instead? Gameplay is the single thing that sets video-games as a medium appart from movies and books. It stands to reason that therefor the gameplay should be the core part of the game. Hell the name should give it away, you PLAY a video-GAME with GAMEPLAY. It's all about the "GAME"  and the "PLAY". There is no "GAME" or "PLAY" in "STORY".

No, the fact that you control what happens in the game is what sets them apart from movies and books. Doesn't matter whether you control it through the gameplay or through something else, what sets games apart from other mediums is that you are in control of it. The sole gameplay mechanic of some games is simply typing text and pressing enter to make a choice.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

It's this twisted and idiotic mindset that turned the game industry to sh!t. For a long time, video-games used to be about gameplay and the gameplay used to be the core of the game, but a lot of people have seem to forgotten that, which is why so many "games"  these days aren't really games, they're just ******-poor wannabe-movie "games" with terrible gameplay and way too many lengthy cutscenes.

The focus on a good story has turned the game industry to sh!t? Do you remember the dark days of when video games were only about gameplay? If you want to kill things or collect things with absolutely no motive, become a delivery boy/girl, or go join the army and shoot things.
I remember Baldur's Gate. Didn't have excessive and lengthy cutscenes, but you could still control how your character acted, how the world saw you, who you adventured with.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The sooner this whole "cinematic game" hype blows over, the better. I want my high quality game-experience with high-quality gameplay back.

Yes, because in YOUR perfect world, everything you do in a game should be pointless and meaningless. You should not have to deal with emotional stimulation from characters or events.
Tell you what. Why don't you, instead of playing games, go read a factual textbook.
Let's make an analogy on books.
Books exist to tell a story, right? Oh, I disagree. Books exist to store information. Don't read novels, just read books on literature and nuclear physics. Because that is obviously what books were meant for, to record information and facts, not stories and fantasy.

Modifié par Sumthing, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:12 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find the stories of linear games much more immersive than the RPGs. Like Ellie, Joel or Lara Croft.. I felt much more immersed in their linear and scripted stories than in my Shepard, even back in ME1. I have no idea why, but that being said, I don't want Mass Effect to become like them. Linear games should remain linear games and RPGs should remain such. I love both the genres and wouldn't like them to take on each other's characteristics.

Modifié par pirate1802, 08 juillet 2013 - 05:09 .

[The Heretic of Time]

iakus wrote...

So video games peaked at Missle Command, huh?

This philosophy is why video games as art is a concept that gets laughed at.

I have no love of the recent obsession with "cinematic experience" either, but that's because it interferes with roleplaying as much as it does with gameplay.

This is of course the biggest nonsense.

The reason why video-games are not taken seriously as a form of art are 2 simple reasons:

1) Video-games as an art medium are relatively new. It always takes some time before a new medium is accepted as art by the general consensus.

2) Video-games today put too much focus on things that other mediums already do much better. Instead of trying to be like a movie and do the same things that movies do, games should do their own thing. One thing is unique to games is interactivity and gameplay. So for games to be taken seriously as art, they should shine in the interactive and gameplay department.

Sumthing wrote...

You're in the wrong place. Go back to COD.

Wow! Such an original and unpredictable reply! Did you think of that all by yourself?

Your stupid reply perfectly ilustrates your ignorance and lack of understanding.
Call of Duty is the perfect example of what games SHOULDN'T be. Back in the days, first-person shooters had big non-linear levels with lots of gameplay, including solving puzzles, finding items and exploring the area in order to progress (examples: Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark 64 and Duke Nukem 3D). Call of Duty however has turned the FPS genre in a boring, linear pop-a-mole shooting gallery with tons of cutscenes, scripted events and on-rails shooting, all of the sake of storytelling and creating an "epic" cinematic experience. It sucks.

Sumthing wrote...

Games are made for enjoyment. Some people ENJOY a good story. Some people ENJOY being able to control what happens in a good story. Gameplay without a story is gameplay without a point.

Tetris, the most popular, famous, well-known and best sold game ever says hi (in case you lived under a rock and don't know what Tetris is: it's a game with really addictive gameplay and absolutely zero story).

Games work perfectly fine without stories and still can be fun games.

Games without gameplay however simply aren't games, it's that simple.

Sumthing wrote...

The focus on a good story has turned the game industry to sh!t? Do you remember the dark days of when video games were only about gameplay?

There is a huge difference between "focus on gameplay" (which is what I want) and "only gameplay" (which can be fun,but I certainly don't want all games to be like that).

Also, what "dark days when video-games were only about gameplay"  are you talking about? The good old days of gaming were nothing like that. There are many words I could use for the good old days of gaming, but "dark" isn't one of them (unless you're talking about the gaming crash of 1983, which was actually caused because most games had absolutely terrible and buggy gameplay, and not because of the lack of stories).

Something tells me you're probably too young to even know what you're talking about.

[The Heretic of Time]

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find the stories of linear games much more immersive than the RPGs. Like Ellie, Joel or Lara Croft.. I felt much more immersed in their linear and scripted stories than in my Shepard, even back in ME1. I have no idea why,

I know why. Because of their linearity, the stories in those games had better pacing.

Pacing is a very important part of storytelling, but because games are an interactive medium with player agency, it's very hard for the game-director to have control over the pacing of his/her story in his/her video-game. Because of the lack of (proper) pacing (ESPECIALLY in RPGs), stories in video-games often fall flat on their face, or simply are not as engaging, immersive or thrilling as stories in linear games with more focus on the pacing.

Linear games with linear stories also have the oppertunity to tell the story while you're basically doing something else in the game. It's possible for such games to let you shoot stuff or explore stuff while the game unfolds the story to you, simply because such games do not need your player imput to tell their story. We can clearly see this in games like Tomb Raider 2013, Uncharted and The Last of US.

This is the reason why games in general suck as a storytelling medium. In order to tell a proper immersive story in a video-game, you'd have to sacrifice gameplay and player agency, which brings up the question: why bother making/playing a video-game instead of filming/watching a movie.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 05:31 .

[The Heretic of Time]

J. Reezy wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

This is the reason why games in general suck as a storytelling medium. In order to tell a proper immersive story in a video-game, you'd have to sacrifice gameplay and player agency, which brings up the question why bother making/playing a video-game instead of filming/watching a movie.

Gonna have to disagree with your reasoning here. Different strokes and all that I guess. I think video games do work and can continue to work quite well as a story telling medium.

Well, all I can say is that I truly hope you're right. Games like The Witcher series do give me hope though.

Also, I believe that games like Fallout (the first), Fallout 2 and Planescape: Torment had a good balanced mix of engaging gameplay, player agency, freedom and an engaging story. I would love to see more games like that but created with the modern tools and technology that we as game-developers have today.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 05:27 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Pacing is a very important part of storytelling, but because games are an interactive medium with player agency, it's very hard for the game-director to have control over the pacing of his/her story in his/her video-game. Because of the lack of (proper) pacing (ESPECIALLY in RPGs), stories in video-games often fall flat on their face, or simply are not as engaging, immersive or thrilling as stories in linear games with more focus on the pacing.

True that. I personally find an average story with great pacing much more enjoyable than say, a great story with mediocre pacing.

[Sumthing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find the stories of linear games much more immersive than the RPGs. Like Ellie, Joel or Lara Croft.. I felt much more immersed in their linear and scripted stories than in my Shepard, even back in ME1. I have no idea why,

I know why. Because of their linearity, the stories in those games had better pacing.

Pacing is a very important part of storytelling, but because games are an interactive medium with player agency, it's very hard for the game-director to have control over the pacing of his/her story in his/her video-game. Because of the lack of (proper) pacing (ESPECIALLY in RPGs), stories in video-games often fall flat on their face, or simply are not as engaging, immersive or thrilling as stories in linear games with more focus on the pacing.

Linear games with linear stories also have the oppertunity to tell the story while you're basically doing something else in the game. It's possible for such games to let you shoot stuff or explore stuff while the game unfolds the story to you, simply because such games do not need your player imput to tell their story. We can clearly see this in games like Tomb Raider 2013, Uncharted and The Last of US.

This is the reason why games in general suck as a storytelling medium. In order to tell a proper immersive story in a video-game, you'd have to sacrifice gameplay and player agency, which brings up the question: why bother making/playing a video-game instead of filming/watching a movie.

Because in a video game, you can choose how the plot advances. In an RPG, you can choose what decisions your player makes. I prefer to be able to choose. Games are excellent storytelling mediums, for the reason you said they are different from movies: Because you control what happens in them. I don't like playing a game, where the main character is an idiot, and falls for tricks, and does stupid things. I want to be able to control how my character reacts to the plot, and to other characters.
Games suck as a storytelling medium, because they have to sacrifice gameplay? Tell that to Planescape: Torment.

[The Heretic of Time]

Sumthing wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find the stories of linear games much more immersive than the RPGs. Like Ellie, Joel or Lara Croft.. I felt much more immersed in their linear and scripted stories than in my Shepard, even back in ME1. I have no idea why,

I know why. Because of their linearity, the stories in those games had better pacing.

Pacing is a very important part of storytelling, but because games are an interactive medium with player agency, it's very hard for the game-director to have control over the pacing of his/her story in his/her video-game. Because of the lack of (proper) pacing (ESPECIALLY in RPGs), stories in video-games often fall flat on their face, or simply are not as engaging, immersive or thrilling as stories in linear games with more focus on the pacing.

Linear games with linear stories also have the oppertunity to tell the story while you're basically doing something else in the game. It's possible for such games to let you shoot stuff or explore stuff while the game unfolds the story to you, simply because such games do not need your player imput to tell their story. We can clearly see this in games like Tomb Raider 2013, Uncharted and The Last of US.

This is the reason why games in general suck as a storytelling medium. In order to tell a proper immersive story in a video-game, you'd have to sacrifice gameplay and player agency, which brings up the question: why bother making/playing a video-game instead of filming/watching a movie.

Because in a video game, you can choose how the plot advances. In an RPG, you can choose what decisions your player makes. I prefer to be able to choose. Games are excellent storytelling mediums, for the reason you said they are different from movies: Because you control what happens in them. I don't like playing a game, where the main character is an idiot, and falls for tricks, and does stupid things. I want to be able to control how my character reacts to the plot, and to other characters.
Games suck as a storytelling medium, because they have to sacrifice gameplay? Tell that to Planescape: Torment.

And while this is all true, I still think it's ridiculous to say that gameplay should stand in service to the story, while it clearly should be the other way around.

I'm not against games that try to tell a good story, and I certainly do acknowledge games that manage to tell a good story such as Planescape Torment, but in the end, the biggest ingredients of these games are and should be gameplay, player agency, freedom and exploration. The story is merely there to give context to the gameplay and world that we explore in that game, which is perfectly fine and they way I like it.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 06:21 .

[Sumthing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

So video games peaked at Missle Command, huh?

This philosophy is why video games as art is a concept that gets laughed at.

I have no love of the recent obsession with "cinematic experience" either, but that's because it interferes with roleplaying as much as it does with gameplay.

This is of course the biggest nonsense.

The reason why video-games are not taken seriously as a form of art are 2 simple reasons:

1) Video-games as an art medium are relatively new. It always takes some time before a new medium is accepted as art by the general consensus.

2) Video-games today put too much focus on things that other mediums already do much better. Instead of trying to be like a movie and do the same things that movies do, games should do their own thing. One thing is unique to games is interactivity and gameplay. So for games to be taken seriously as art, they should shine in the interactive and gameplay department.

The interactivity part of games is why they can tell stories better. A story in a game does not do the same thing a story in a movie does. A story in a game is often shapeable by the player. The player can interact with the story and the gameworld. Games can allow the player to choose what happens in the story. The story can then be told better, because it is being told the player wants it to be told. Another thing unique to games is their ability to be able to simulate and generate worlds on demand. You can't do this with a movie, but you can do it with a game. Dwarf Fortress, for example. You can generate massive, non-linear worlds, and still enjoy the story you create with your characters. A movie cannot be randomly generated, it has to follow a specific plot, a specific storyline. Games don't have these restrictions. In Morrowind, for example, I could just entirely ignore the main storyline, and go adventure around, creating my own stories. Games with linear storylines may as well not have a story.

Using your logic, movies should just not try to tell stories. Books can do that perfectly. Movies should be used for what they can do that is unique, showing moving images and scenes. For movies to be taken seriously, they should shine in beautiful images and scenes, not story.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

You're in the wrong place. Go back to COD.

Wow! Such an original and unpredictable reply! Did you think of that all by yourself?

Your stupid reply perfectly ilustrates your ignorance and lack of understanding.
Call of Duty is the perfect example of what games SHOULDN'T be. Back in the days, first-person shooters had big non-linear levels with lots of gameplay, including solving puzzles, finding items and exploring the area in order to progress (examples: Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark 64 and Duke Nukem 3D). Call of Duty however has turned the FPS genre in a boring, linear pop-a-mole shooting gallery with tons of cutscenes, scripted events and on-rails shooting, all of the sake of storytelling and creating an "epic" cinematic experience. It sucks.

Well all those games a basic plot. You are in the wrong place. ME3 is a roleplaying game, the story is it's core. It would work with any excellent gameplay mechanic other than what it uses, but not without it's story. See, what often sets games apart is their story. Games with a bland, generic story, but excellent gameplay, often fail when competing against games with the same gameplay mechanic, but a good story.  

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

Games are made for enjoyment. Some people ENJOY a good story. Some people ENJOY being able to control what happens in a good story. Gameplay without a story is gameplay without a point.

Tetris, the most popular, famous, well-known and best sold game ever says hi (in case you lived under a rock and don't know what Tetris is: it's a game with really addictive gameplay and absolutely zero story).

Games work perfectly fine without stories and still can be fun games.

Games without gameplay however simply aren't games, it's that simple.

Just because a games gameplay isn't the most epic part of the game, and isn't the most focused on part of the game, doesn't mean it's a terrible game. Games with spectacular scenery and spectacular storylines, but simple gameplay are better than games with basic scenery, basic storylines and awesome gameplay.
Yes, games without gameplay aren't games. But the best RPG's use gameplay to tell a story. Even if the gameplay mechanic is just pressing a button to choose which option you pick in a conversation, that is still gameplay.
I hated Tetris. The most boring game I ever played. The Gameplay isn't addictive. What is addictive about stacking shapes so they fit together? I don't feel any emotional attachment to anything in the game. I don't feel any motivation to do it. What does it achieve? What does it teach me? What does it simulate? If I wanted to waste time, I'd rather sit and stare at a wall than play Tetris. I do find the gameplay of Tetris addictive. But see, what you are putting out is your opinion. You don't like the stories or gameplay in KOTOR and Mass Effect for example. I, however, think the stories and the gameplay are excellent. That is opinion.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

The focus on a good story has turned the game industry to sh!t? Do you remember the dark days of when video games were only about gameplay?

There is a huge difference between "focus on gameplay" (which is what I want) and "only gameplay" (which can be fun,but I certainly don't want all games to be like that).

Also, what "dark days when video-games were only about gameplay"  are you talking about? The good old days of gaming were nothing like that. There are many words I could use for the good old days of gaming, but "dark" isn't one of them (unless you're talking about the gaming crash of 1983, which was actually caused because most games had absolutely terrible and buggy gameplay, and not because of the lack of stories).

Something tells me you're probably too young to even know what you're talking about.

"The good old days of gaming" were in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000's. That is when gaming reached it's peak. Baldur's Gate, Icewindale, Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Arena, Daggerfall, Planescape: Torment,  Leisure Suit Larry, Halo, Marathon, Shogun: Total War, Age of Empires, Duke Nukem 3D, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Doom 2,  Crash Bandicoot, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars: Battlefront, Soldier of Fortune, Civilization,  and many others. People don't play D&D just for the gameplay! I play D&D because of the stories it enables me to create. I can make amazing epic plotlines, as a DM or a Player, and entertain myself with them. If all D&D had was the gameplay mechanic, I don't think it would have been very successful. People like the idea of going to new worlds and living out simulated lives, some people like to adventure in these games. Some people DON'T like mindless gameplay like Tetris.

Modifié par Sumthing, 08 juillet 2013 - 06:43 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Sumthing wrote...

The interactivity part of games is why they can tell stories better. A story in a game does not do the same thing a story in a movie does. A story in a game is often shapeable by the player.

That is just an illusion. In reality, video-games with "branching story-lines" just have multiple stories for the price of one, and you as the player just point and pick the story you want to see. the result is the same as in a movie, but worse.

If you want true player agency on the story and a truly interactive story, go play pens 'n paper RPGs (which are awesome if you have a good group of players and a talented storyteller).

Sumthing wrote...

See, what often sets games apart is their story. Games with a bland, generic story, but excellent gameplay, often fail when competing against games with the same gameplay mechanic, but a good story.  

You must be new to gaming. This is absolutely not true at all. The most popular and succesful games ever made are all games with a huge focus on gameplay, some of those games do even have a story at all.

The biggest hits ever created, such as The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, Tetris and Pokemon, all became such big hits because of the gameplay (note: gameplay and game-mechanics are not the same thing, this is important ot know).

Sumthing wrote...

"The good old days of gaming" were in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000's. That is when gaming reached it's peak.

Well, I agree with that, because that's when games had it all, before the game-devs decided that it would be a cool idea to turn video-games into "cinematic experiences" with the focus on storytelling instead of gameplay (e.g. wannabe movies with crappy linear gameplay and too many cutscenes).

Sumthing wrote...

People don't play D&D just for the gameplay! I play D&D because of the stories it enables me to create. I can make amazing epic plotlines, as a DM or a Player, and entertain myself with them. If all D&D had was the gameplay mechanic, I don't think it would have been very successful. People like the idea of going to new worlds and living out simulated lives, some people like to adventure in these games. Some people DON'T like mindless gameplay like Tetris.

You can't compare a pens 'n paper RPG to a video-game RPG (or video-games in general). They're completely different things.

I too am a pens 'n paper roleplayer (though I absolutely hate Dungeons & Dragons, it sucks, World of Darkness is where it's at ) by the way, so if you're trying to preach about the value of a good story, you're preaching to the choir. I love a good story as much as the next guy, but I simply acknowledge that video-games (as they are now) are not the best medium for telling a good story, not even an interactive story (pens 'n paper games are more suited for interactive story-telling).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 07:16 .

[Sumthing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

The interactivity part of games is why they can tell stories better. A story in a game does not do the same thing a story in a movie does. A story in a game is often shapeable by the player.

That is just an illusion. In reality, video-games with "branching story-lines" just have multiple stories for the price of one, and you as the player just point and pick the story you want to see. the result is the same as in a movie, but worse.

If you want true player agency on the story and a truly interactive story, go play pens 'n paper RPGs (which are awesome if you have a good group of players and a talented storyteller).

Sumthing wrote...

See, what often sets games apart is their story. Games with a bland, generic story, but excellent gameplay, often fail when competing against games with the same gameplay mechanic, but a good story.  

You must be new to gaming. This is absolutely not true at all. The most popular and succesful games ever made are all games with a huge focus on gameplay, some of those games do even have a story at all.

The biggest hits ever created, such as The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, Tetris and Pokemon, all became such big hits because of the gameplay (note: gameplay and game-mechanics are not the same thing, this is important ot know).

Sumthing wrote...

"The good old days of gaming" were in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000's. That is when gaming reached it's peak.

Well, I agree with that, because that's when games had it all, before the game-devs decided that it would be cool to try and turn games into "cinematic experiences" (e.g. wannabe movies with crappy linear gameplay and too many cutscenes).

Sumthing wrote...

People don't play D&D just for the gameplay! I play D&D because of the stories it enables me to create. I can make amazing epic plotlines, as a DM or a Player, and entertain myself with them. If all D&D had was the gameplay mechanic, I don't think it would have been very successful. People like the idea of going to new worlds and living out simulated lives, some people like to adventure in these games. Some people DON'T like mindless gameplay like Tetris.

You can't compare a pens 'n paper RPG to a video-game RPG (or video-games in general). They're completely different things.

I too am a pens 'n paper roleplayer (though I absolutely hate Dungeons & Dragons, it sucks, World of Darkness is where it's at ) by the way, so if you're trying to preach about the value of a good story, you're preaching to the choir. I love a good story as much as the next guy, but I simply acknowledge that video-games (as they are now) are not the best medium for telling a good story, not even an interactive story (pens 'n paper games are more suited for interactive story-telling).

Well, I agree with you on the PnP being better for interactive story telling. I guess my argument sort of devolved from being focused on video games to games in general.
I still think that KOTOR and Mass Effect had great stories though.

[angol fear]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

"The good old days of gaming" were in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000's. That is when gaming reached it's peak.

Well, I agree with that, because that's when games had it all, before the game-devs decided that it would be a cool idea to turn video-games into "cinematic experiences" with the focus on storytelling instead of gameplay (e.g. wannabe movies with crappy linear gameplay and too many cutscenes).

Dragon's Lair in 1983, anyone? The cinematic experience isn't new. 

[The Heretic of Time]

angol fear wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sumthing wrote...

"The good old days of gaming" were in the late eighties, nineties and early 2000's. That is when gaming reached it's peak.

Well, I agree with that, because that's when games had it all, before the game-devs decided that it would be a cool idea to turn video-games into "cinematic experiences" with the focus on storytelling instead of gameplay (e.g. wannabe movies with crappy linear gameplay and too many cutscenes).

Dragon's Lair in 1983, anyone? The cinematic experience isn't new. 

And we all know how much of a commercial succes Dragon's Lair was (e.g. not a succes at all). I would say that it doesn't even deserve to be called a video-game. It's an insult to gaming. I hoped I would never see anything like that ever again, but it seems modern games are starting to become more and more like Dragon's Lair, and people these days actually seem to enjoy it, which makes me a sad panda. 

[Nightdragon8]

.... for some reason, the more IntelligentME3Fanboy writes down the more I think he is acting like Deadpool... strange how that works.....

anyway, i agree, Video games and RPG's I think are starting to go into cutscene heavy games... now it makes sense for politcal games cause, unless ou are going to be taking a goverment over with guns there is no real point.

Now, Alpha Protocal, yes yes gameplay sucked, I agree, very basic. But the politcs and the agent and convos I think where top notch. And depending on which misions you take depends on what other people you meet.

[Sumthing]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

.... for some reason, the more IntelligentME3Fanboy writes down the more I think he is acting like Deadpool... strange how that works.....

anyway, i agree, Video games and RPG's I think are starting to go into cutscene heavy games... now it makes sense for politcal games cause, unless ou are going to be taking a goverment over with guns there is no real point.

Now, Alpha Protocal, yes yes gameplay sucked, I agree, very basic. But the politcs and the agent and convos I think where top notch. And depending on which misions you take depends on what other people you meet.

A politics game? I would rather choose what I say, what side I support, rather than have cutscenes.