355 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Eterna5 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Even the absolute most positive review on Metacritic (average rating: 71/100) states that the story in Beyond: Two Souls has plot holes and cliche moments.

I'd love you to find me a single story that doesn't have a plot hole or cliche. 


I'd also like to take this moment to point out the utter hypocrisy of some posters in this thread; who around the time of ME3's release spouted that critics were utterly untrustworthy and are now endorsing critic reviews because they align with their biases.  

Yes, that's quite funny:

Some players - "ME3 has 75 perfect reviews? But the game is terrible! All these critics are just liars!"
The same players about the same critics later - "Beyond has some negative reviews? Listen to the critics, they are professionals!"

And what is also funny, is that the same players are calling me (and other people with positive feelings about the game) a troll for supporting devs and actors who did really great job. How can I take mentioned players seriously? How can anyone but themselves can take them seriously? This is impossible

[Seival]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So wait, Seival you hate Mass Effect now?

Like I said, I like Mass Effect very much. If I liked another game more, it doesn't mean I started to hate previous ones. For me top 3 best games of all times currently are:

1st place - Beyond: Two Souls.
2nd place - The Last of Us.
3rd place - Mass Effect Trilogy.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Well, I see that all interactive movie dislikers here attack only one particular game. Game they most likely didn't even play.

Playing sandboxes and dolls are for kids. And even kids asking to tell them a story when they got tired of sandboxes and dolls. Meaning they also see the difference between sandbox and real story.

Please, compare some very famous titles (including GTA) chronologically. What part of the games was advancing the most from sequel to sequel? Gameplay? Of course not. It was graphics, sound/music, and cutscenes' quality. Compare ME1, ME2, and ME3 gameplay. Compare DA:O and DA2 gameplay. I'm sure you can find much more examples yourself. In story-driven games regular gameplay is transforming towards more simple, but also more intuitive and logical form. It comes closer and closer to the border, where interactive movie starts.

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up"

If playing sandbox games makes me childish, then I am childish and loving it.

An increase in graphics and sound have no link to people wanting more interactive movies. You want to see what the people want? You look at what the people are buying.

If these interactive movies are what everybody wants, why has Minecraft vastly outsold Heavy Rain? To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it's outsold every QD game combined and it uses 16-bit era graphics with no cutscenes and indeed pretty much no story.

and what about Mass Effect?

The combat mechanics have only gotten better during the game, while many talk about how they feel the writing has gone downhill throughout the series.

So if this is "what people want" why are QDs games not selling better than the other non interactive movie regular gameplay games that we're apparently shifting away from?

Well, I never told that being childish is bad thing. I only told that such thing is not for me.

Directly? No. But the further AAA story-driven games advance, the closer they become to interactive movie standards. I'm sure that at some point some top devs will start producing interactive movies instead of regular games.

Also, I wanna add, that good interactive movie's gameplay isn't restricted just to logical and intuitive interactions. You move your character like in a 3rd person gameplay, there are elements of riding or driving simulators, there are elements of a shooter and stealth action. Interactive movie, in fact, can contain elements from different gameplay mechanics providing them with top-notch animations/sounds to make them feel much more realistic than in any regular game. Beyond: Two Souls is very good example of all of this...

... Besides, no regular gameplay can simulate non-combat activities as good as interactive movie. Remember party episode from ME3: Citadel? Now compare it to non-combat episodes from Beyond: Two Souls and feel the difference.

Mass Effect gameplay was definitly improved over time. BioWare just removed all excess things from ME1 gameplay and polished what have remained. The same goes for Dragon Age. But some people still call this disadvantage somehow.

When players want stories, they purchase top-notch AAA story-driven games, not Minecrafs or WoWs. And AAA story-driven games are following the visual path, not imagination one. The path that most players want such games to follow. This is the way that eventually leads to interactive movies.

Modifié par Seival, 26 octobre 2013 - 01:20 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Seival my friend, I disagree here. I think B:TS had a so-so story. It had its feely moments, but overall I found it quite meh. Now meh stories are alright in actual games, indeed some of my favourite games have had meh stoies. But in an interactive movie-game like QD makes, its not good enough. When the stoy is literally the only thing you have in your game, it needs to be the bestest of the best. And B:TS didn't have it, imo. And also there are many great storytellers currently. Crystal Dynamics, Irrational, Bioware themselves, Naughty Dogs, CDPR, Rockstar.. all are far above QD imo.

Mr.House wrote...
Nah, my fav is him saying this is the future for games. 

If that is so then I quit right now. I prefer games to be.. games. :|

Modifié par pirate1802, 26 octobre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Seival]

pirate1802 wrote...

Seival my friend, I disagree here. I think B:TS had a so-so story. It had its feely moments, but overall I found it quite meh. Now meh stories are alright in actual games, indeed some of my favourite games have had meh stoies. But in an interactive movie-game like QD makes, its not good enough. When the stoy is literally the only thing you have in your game, it needs to be the bestest of the best. And B:TS didn't have it, imo. And also there are many great storytellers currently. Crystal Dynamics, Irrational, Bioware themselves, Naughty Dogs, CDPR, Rockstar.. all are far above QD imo.

Mr.House wrote...
Nah, my fav is him saying this is the future for games. 

If that is so then I quit right now. I prefer games to be.. games. :|

Well, 1 year ago I would probably 90% agree with you. But now it's just impossible. Playing Beyond: Two Souls was such an exciting event for me

There are few points that I should have voiced earlier:
 - I don't like detective stories, and I didn't like Heavy Rain much.
 - I really like sci-fi stories, and I liked Mass Effect Trilogy very much.
 - I don't like zombie stories, but I liked The Last of Us even more than ME Trilogy.
 - I almost hate paranormal stories, but I felt in love with Beyond: Two Souls.
 - I like to play games much more than to read books and to watch movies, but I loved Beyond: Two Souls gameplay.

Two last points are the most important. They look contradicting, aren't they? But it's not that simple.

Why did I love a type of story that I usually dislike?
 - Because the story's concept was represented in a perspective that I not just accepted, but also liked very much. They literally adapted the concept I almost hate for people like me, only true professionals can do something like that.
 - Because the story was represented through the truly professional actors' work, a lot of truly professional actors' work, and through the top-notch visualization and sound.
 - Because the scenario and each turn of events was very intriguing.

Why did I love the interactive movie more than any regular game?
 - Because the gameplay was an addition to the story, not vice versa.
 - Because the gameplay fit each and every part of any scene just perfectly.
 - Because there were quite a lot of gameplay types involved, gameplay types of different genres starting from cover-shooter, and ending with submarine piloting simulator. Yes, good interactive move can, and should be more than just a "press right button in right time". And Beyond: Two Souls is very nice example of that.



I was sceptical about interactive movies just like you. Maybe Beyond: Two Souls wasn't enough for you to change your mind, but there will be more games like that, and most likely they will be even better. But for now, if you didn't actually play Beyond: Two Souls, I should suggest you to try. Watching several let's plays will never replace actual gameplay.

About saying that interactive movie is the future of storytelling. Yes, I really believe in that. Story-driven regular games are becoming more and more visually rich, and have less and less excess gameplay each year. Slowly they coming closer and closer to interactive movie border.

Modifié par Seival, 26 octobre 2013 - 05:06 .

[spirosz]

I thought the story was well done, but what sold it for me, personally - was the voice acting, the characters, the tension between Jodie and Aiden and the soundtrack. All of those together just gave me the feels all the way through, even if there were cliche moments.

Also, it's naive to think that there aren't any great "storytellers" in gaming today - to be honest Seival, you're showing a pattern of when another great game comes out, you'll say the exact same thing. ME3, TLOU, Beyond Two Souls - it's sort of predicable by now.

As much as I love Beyond, I'm not going to deny other developers of their writing and even cases of better writing of stories that they pour their hearts out into just because I enjoy this game better.

[Seival]

spirosz wrote...

I thought the story was well done, but what sold it for me, personally - was the voice acting, the characters, the tension between Jodie and Aiden and the soundtrack. All of those together just gave me the feels all the way through, even if there were cliche moments.

Also, it's naive to think that there aren't any great "storytellers" in gaming today - to be honest Seival, you're showing a pattern of when another great game comes out, you'll say the exact same thing. ME3, TLOU, Beyond Two Souls - it's sort of predicable by now.

As much as I love Beyond, I'm not going to deny other developers of their writing and even cases of better writing of stories that they pour their hearts out into just because I enjoy this game better.

By the best storyteller I didn't mean that Quantic Dream is the only one, while everyone else are just nothing. I meant something like that: Quantic Dream - 100%, Naughty Dog - 95%, BioWare - 85%. They are really close in terms of storytelling quality. But right now the best one in my opinion is Quantic Dream.

There are also outsiders, of course. I wouldn't give Blizzard, for example, more than 30%. Their games are stagnating long ago even through Warcraft 3 had nice story back in days it was released.



The essence of interactive movie is its story. More story, less excess gameplay. Concentration on how good the story will be, and no worries about overcomplicated game balance tuning. Interactive movie can use different gameplay types in different episodes of the game, but storytelling has to take priority so you don't have to create too much of that gameplay - it must be enough to feel interactivity, but not too much to avoid regular gameplay's monotony. Isn't that the best way to tell a story? I believe it is.

[spirosz]

That is fine, but others disagree. The way to tell a story is determined by the developers and how it relates to the game they want to create and more importantly - how the fans take it. Most of it is subjectivity and also I wouldn't compare stories with percentages, but that is just me.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

Well, I never told that being childish is bad thing. I only told that such thing is not for me.

Directly? No. But the further AAA story-driven games advance, the closer they become to interactive movie standards. I'm sure that at some point some top devs will start producing interactive movies instead of regular games.

Also, I wanna add, that good interactive movie's gameplay isn't restricted just to logical and intuitive interactions. You move your character like in a 3rd person gameplay, there are elements of riding or driving simulators, there are elements of a shooter and stealth action. Interactive movie, in fact, can contain elements from different gameplay mechanics providing them with top-notch animations/sounds to make them feel much more realistic than in any regular game. Beyond: Two Souls is very good example of all of this...

... Besides, no regular gameplay can simulate non-combat activities as good as interactive movie. Remember party episode from ME3: Citadel? Now compare it to non-combat episodes from Beyond: Two Souls and feel the difference.

Mass Effect gameplay was definitly improved over time. BioWare just removed all excess things from ME1 gameplay and polished what have remained. The same goes for Dragon Age. But some people still call this disadvantage somehow.

When players want stories, they purchase top-notch AAA story-driven games, not Minecrafs or WoWs. And AAA story-driven games are following the visual path, not imagination one. The path that most players want such games to follow. This is the way that eventually leads to interactive movies.

Your exact words were "playing sandboxes and dolls are for kids" which implies that I shouldn't be playing them either because they're apparently not for adults.

How about actually naming a few of these big name games not from Quantic Dream which are making this apparent shift to interactive movies?

There are not elements of those games. There are scenes involving those things, but the gameplay still remains the same throughout the entire game for the most part.

Regular gameplay can't beat interactive movies at non combat? Think about what you're saying here.

You're telling me that hooking up a joystick to my PC and playing a flight/space sim is not as good as using your controller and doing it via QTEs. It's not like Wing Commander would have been a much better game had it been more like Beyond: Two Souls.

Even going away from the big name games and going indie, Kerbal Space Program has no combat in it. Your objective is quite simply to try to get into space and to other planets(more difficult than it sounds). The game would not be anywhere close to as good as it is gameplay wise if it were an interactive movie.

How about Thief 2? Your main objective in that game is to actively avoid combat, and it's one of the best stealth based games ever game(the best, in my opinion).

The thing about Mass Effect is that the combat systems saw a lot of revamping and polish, but the story telling? The delivery method did not change throughout the entire series.

I have named multiple games that go against what you are telling me. The top sellers on Steam right now are games which are not interactive movies. The top RPG games(arguably the story driven genre) has a number of games in the top 10 sellers which are not shifting towards interactive movies. As far as I know, none of them are.

You have yet to even name a single game which is following this supposed trend that is not a game from Quantic Dream. Simply having a lot of visual improvements do not automatically equal becoming an interactive movie, by the way.

[The Night Mammoth]

I think the chances of Beyond: Two Souls being Seival's favourite story driven game for long aren't great. We'll probably be back again next year when DA:I or MGS V comes out, and all this stuff about 'interactive movies' will be forgotten.

[MegaSovereign]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I think the chances of Beyond: Two Souls being Seival's favourite story driven game for long aren't great. We'll probably be back again next year when DA:I or MGS V comes out, and all this stuff about 'interactive movies' will be forgotten.

It'd be hilariously ironic if the next game he worships is a racing game or something.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

Well, I never told that being childish is bad thing. I only told that such thing is not for me.

Directly? No. But the further AAA story-driven games advance, the closer they become to interactive movie standards. I'm sure that at some point some top devs will start producing interactive movies instead of regular games.

Also, I wanna add, that good interactive movie's gameplay isn't restricted just to logical and intuitive interactions. You move your character like in a 3rd person gameplay, there are elements of riding or driving simulators, there are elements of a shooter and stealth action. Interactive movie, in fact, can contain elements from different gameplay mechanics providing them with top-notch animations/sounds to make them feel much more realistic than in any regular game. Beyond: Two Souls is very good example of all of this...

... Besides, no regular gameplay can simulate non-combat activities as good as interactive movie. Remember party episode from ME3: Citadel? Now compare it to non-combat episodes from Beyond: Two Souls and feel the difference.

Mass Effect gameplay was definitly improved over time. BioWare just removed all excess things from ME1 gameplay and polished what have remained. The same goes for Dragon Age. But some people still call this disadvantage somehow.

When players want stories, they purchase top-notch AAA story-driven games, not Minecrafs or WoWs. And AAA story-driven games are following the visual path, not imagination one. The path that most players want such games to follow. This is the way that eventually leads to interactive movies.

Your exact words were "playing sandboxes and dolls are for kids" which implies that I shouldn't be playing them either because they're apparently not for adults.

How about actually naming a few of these big name games not from Quantic Dream which are making this apparent shift to interactive movies?

There are not elements of those games. There are scenes involving those things, but the gameplay still remains the same throughout the entire game for the most part.

Regular gameplay can't beat interactive movies at non combat? Think about what you're saying here.

You're telling me that hooking up a joystick to my PC and playing a flight/space sim is not as good as using your controller and doing it via QTEs. It's not like Wing Commander would have been a much better game had it been more like Beyond: Two Souls.

Even going away from the big name games and going indie, Kerbal Space Program has no combat in it. Your objective is quite simply to try to get into space and to other planets(more difficult than it sounds). The game would not be anywhere close to as good as it is gameplay wise if it were an interactive movie.

How about Thief 2? Your main objective in that game is to actively avoid combat, and it's one of the best stealth based games ever game(the best, in my opinion).

The thing about Mass Effect is that the combat systems saw a lot of revamping and polish, but the story telling? The delivery method did not change throughout the entire series.

I have named multiple games that go against what you are telling me. The top sellers on Steam right now are games which are not interactive movies. The top RPG games(arguably the story driven genre) has a number of games in the top 10 sellers which are not shifting towards interactive movies. As far as I know, none of them are.

You have yet to even name a single game which is following this supposed trend that is not a game from Quantic Dream. Simply having a lot of visual improvements do not automatically equal becoming an interactive movie, by the way.

I'm afraid you didn't understand anything I've said here.

I was talking about how regular AAA story-driven games move closer and closer to interactive movie standards and gave an example of developer, who skipped all those iterations that will require years for other developers to make. While everyone else are going there slowly (and I already gave you examples, asking to compare games chronologically), Quantic Dream is already there. They already there, and they are advancing further.

We can theorize on the matter non-stop, but only time can tell if my assumptions about the trend were correct. Noone here can disprove my words, unless he has a time machine

Modifié par Seival, 26 octobre 2013 - 10:48 .

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I think the chances of Beyond: Two Souls being Seival's favourite story driven game for long aren't great. We'll probably be back again next year when DA:I or MGS V comes out, and all this stuff about 'interactive movies' will be forgotten.

We shall see. First, someone has to make a game that I'll like more than Beyond: Two Souls.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...
I'm afraid you didn't understand anything I've said here.

I was talking about how regular AAA story-driven games move closer and closer to interactive movie standards and gave an example of developer, who skipped all those iterations that will require years for other developers to make. While everyone else are going there slowly (and I already gave you examples, asking to compare games chronologically), Quantic Dream is already there. They already there, and they are advancing further.

We can theorize on the matter non-stop, but only time can tell if my assumptions about the trend were correct. Noone here can disprove my words, unless he has a time machine

Asking me to find my own examples is not giving me examples.

The thing is that, even comparing some of the games I mentioned chronologically, the improvements have been to graphics, sound, etc.

Graphics do not push a game towards being an interactive movie. There was little change in the delivery method of the story in those games, if any.

What you've been making are not entirely assumptions. You have stated that AAA developers are already heading in that direction.

So why can't you name any of them other than Quantic Dream? I'm not asking anybody to theorize. I'm asking you to back up the claims you are making with actual evidence.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...
I'm afraid you didn't understand anything I've said here.

I was talking about how regular AAA story-driven games move closer and closer to interactive movie standards and gave an example of developer, who skipped all those iterations that will require years for other developers to make. While everyone else are going there slowly (and I already gave you examples, asking to compare games chronologically), Quantic Dream is already there. They already there, and they are advancing further.

We can theorize on the matter non-stop, but only time can tell if my assumptions about the trend were correct. Noone here can disprove my words, unless he has a time machine

Asking me to find my own examples is not giving me examples.

The thing is that, even comparing some of the games I mentioned chronologically, the improvements have been to graphics, sound, etc.

Graphics do not push a game towards being an interactive movie. There was little change in the delivery method of the story in those games, if any.

What you've been making are not entirely assumptions. You have stated that AAA developers are already heading in that direction.

So why can't you name any of them other than Quantic Dream? I'm not asking anybody to theorize. I'm asking you to back up the claims you are making with actual evidence.

So, ME and DA examples were not quite strong for you?

ME Trilogy. What happened to the ME Trilogy gameplay eventually? All excess skills like charm/intimidate or weapon specialization were removed. Many armor variants were removed, and armor/weapon changing was restricted to very specific places. Citadel playable environment became smaller. Missions became smaller. Mako and everything about it was removed. All of that happened, because cut features were not actually needed. They require some time for production during game development, but they are not needed.

DA2. Non-combat skills removed, combat system simplified, dialogue wheel from Mass Effect instead of classic dialogues. Locations became smaller. Much less armors/weapons available for the characters. And so on.

Gameplay for both series followed the path of simplification. But what was improved? Quality of cutscenes, number of voiceovers. Actors provided not only their voices, but also some movement and gestures. Graphics/sound/music became better. All of this made ME and DA stories much better in terms of storytelling. And all excess gameplay features were nothing but an abuse.

And don't kid yourself about DA:I and its promised features. You will see that gameplay will be quite simple, and "open world" will be in fact excess, because most people will use some kind of fast travel that game will definitely have. There will be no exploration or "advanture" there. There will be simple gameplay between non-interactive cutscenes and interactive dialogue scenes...

...is that bad? Of course not. ME and DA followed the right path. Less excess gameplay, more storytelling.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 02:01 .

[Seival]

simfamSP wrote...

Sevial, before I respond, let me get this straight. You feel that interactive movies are what's best for games? Especially as a story-telling medium?

Question for a question.

Do you find "cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-CUTSCENE-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards-cover-wait-uncover-shoot-move-forwards" gameplay very diverse and interesting?

Or maybe "select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-CUTSCENE-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards-select-target-cast-spell-move-forwards" gameplay is great?

How does regular gameplay help to tell the story?

You disagree that 90% of the regular game's story is located within its cutscenes and interactive dialogues?

[TonyKornheizer]

Seival wrote...

So, ME and DA examples were not quite strong for you?

ME Trilogy. What happened to the ME Trilogy gameplay eventually? All excess skills like charm/intimidate or weapon specialization were removed. Many armor variants were removed, and armor/weapon changing was restricted to very specific places. Citadel playable environment became smaller. Missions became smaller. Mako and everything about it was removed. All of that happened, because cut features were not actually needed. They require some time for production during game development, but they are not needed.

DA2. Non-combat skills removed, combat system simplified, dialogue wheel from Mass Effect instead of classic dialogues. Locations became smaller. Much less armors/weapons available for the characters. And so on.

Gameplay for both series followed the path of simplification. But what was improved? Quality of cutscenes, number of voiceovers. Actors provided not only their voices, but also some movement and gestures. Graphics/sound/music became better. All of this made ME and DA stories much better in terms of storytelling. And all excess gameplay features were nothing but an abuse.

And don't kid yourself about DA:I and its promised features. You will see that gameplay will be quite simple, and "open world" will be in fact excess, because most people will use some kind of fast travel that game will definitely have. There will be no exploration or "advanture" there. There will be simple gameplay between non-interactive cutscenes and interactive dialogue scenes...

...is that bad? Of course not. ME and DA followed the right path. Less excess gameplay, more storytelling.

It wasn't that less 'gameplay' is better. It's just that the 'gameplay' in the first ME and DA:O was very clunky.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

So, ME and DA examples were not quite strong for you?

ME Trilogy. What happened to the ME Trilogy gameplay eventually? All excess skills like charm/intimidate or weapon specialization were removed. Many armor variants were removed, and armor/weapon changing was restricted to very specific places. Citadel playable environment became smaller. Missions became smaller. Mako and everything about it was removed. All of that happened, because cut features were not actually needed. They require some time for production during game development, but they are not needed.

DA2. Non-combat skills removed, combat system simplified, dialogue wheel from Mass Effect instead of classic dialogues. Locations became smaller. Much less armors/weapons available for the characters. And so on.

Gameplay for both series followed the path of simplification. But what was improved? Quality of cutscenes, number of voiceovers. Actors provided not only their voices, but also some movement and gestures. Graphics/sound/music became better. All of this made ME and DA stories much better in terms of storytelling. And all excess gameplay features were nothing but an abuse.

And don't kid yourself about DA:I and its promised features. You will see that gameplay will be quite simple, and "open world" will be in fact excess, because most people will use some kind of fast travel that game will definitely have. There will be no exploration or "advanture" there. There will be simple gameplay between non-interactive cutscenes and interactive dialogue scenes...

...is that bad? Of course not. ME and DA followed the right path. Less excess gameplay, more storytelling.

Not really, because you're confusing a lot of things with a shift to interactive movies.

First off, Mass Effect. The guns became much more varied and the gunplay was vastly improved from the first one. The ability system saw an overhaul to make you have to you use your powers more often, and in the third game more choice was added to your builds by having 3 evolution ranks instead of 1.

Most importantly, Mass Effect saw no alterations in the delivery method of the story or a shift to focusing more on it. The cutscenes were not really improved and there was always lots of voice acting.

Then Dragon Age. Crafting moved to NPCs rather than skills so they were not removed. A few non combat abilities did get removed but there were never that many. Dragon Age 2 saw a shift in the gameplay to make is more visceral and face paced. The skill system did not really get simplified, although the waves of enemies did.

The dialogue changed to use the Mass Effect system, and the main character was given a voice. Overall there was less dialogue options than before. It's sort of a 50/50 sort of deal on what they focused on. A lot of changes to every aspect of the game.

As I said before, improvements to the graphics, sound, and music do NOT mean a shift to interactive movies. They mean an improvement to technology.

Theories about future games which have not been released are irrelevant.

If BioWare made their games more like interactive movies, I would stop buying them.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...
How does regular gameplay help to tell the story?

You disagree that 90% of the regular game's story is located within its cutscenes and interactive dialogues?

A point that I think is worth bringing up for the purposes of this thread:

Even in a story heavy game, story is not the only thing that matters.

You still need to have gameplay which is solid on its own.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Seival wrote...

I was sceptical about interactive movies just like you. Maybe Beyond: Two Souls wasn't enough for you to change
your mind, but there will be more games like that, and most likely they will be even better. But for now, if you didn't actually play Beyond: Two Souls, I should suggest you to try. Watching several let's plays will never replace actual gameplay.

I played the game on my friend's PS3. I don't own one, and this game looked mighty interesting, so I treked all the way to his house on the other side of the town and camped there for a couple of days. But even then, I gotta ask, why can't watching a playthrough on youtube replace the actual experience, or replicate it to a reliable degree? I do understand it in cases of other gamey.. games, where you do stuff and kill bad guys. But why not in these types of games? Apart fom different choices you hardly do anything. 

And actually I was very excited for this game. I like games with female protagonists. Absolutely loved Tomb Raider 
and The Last of Us and so was looking forward to this game. But I guess I didn't take into account the type of game 
it will be. I felt that the fact that you're basically watching a movie rather than playing a game hurt the connection of me to Jodie, atleast I felt that way. In other games, Tomb Raider for example I felt I was there, besides Lara, guiding her through the turmoil and slowly watching her grow up. Here I felt I was sitting in a chair and watching a movie about a character growing up. I was no longer feeling that I was there besides the character, guiding and helping her. That's not to say I didn't feel any connection with Jodie at all, it's hard not to feel for the poor girl after all she's been through. But it would have certainly been better had there been actual gameplay. That's just my opinion.

About saying that interactive movie is the future of storytelling. Yes, I really believe in that. Story-driven regular games are becoming more and more visually rich, and have less and less excess gameplay each year. Slowly they coming closer and closer to interactive movie border.

Again I disagree. While games are becoming ore "cinematic" (which seems to be a bad word to describe a game these days) with more and detailed cutscenes, better voice acting all around etc, gameplay is becoming more refined and innovative as well (obviously depending on where you look, you may disagree with this point.) Look at Watch Dogs, GTA V, The Division, heck even AC4. So I don't see a singular shift towards interactive movie types.

And truth be told, you don't need a game to be a QD movie game to tell a great story. You can have all the cinematic-ness, great cutscenes, nice graphics, and yet the game can be actual games with great gameplay as well. You don't need to cut out the gameplay portion to tell a great story. Hell you don't even need cutscenes to tell a story! Fo example, out of the good games I've played this year.. while they were cutscene-heavy they also had significant parts of the story told through normal gameplay. In Bioshock Infinite you have the relationship building between Elizabeth and Booker through everyday actions, as you explore she tosses you a coin, or she sits down on a bench. Then you find out about the racism in Columbia while exploring, outside cutscenes. In Tomb Raider you have Lara initially begging to her attackers "please, you don't have to do this" and later she takes the fight to them and is like "run you bastards!" This happens outside cutscenes, in pure gameplay sections. Same goes for Joel and Ellie's relationship in TLoU. Plenty of development imparted in non-cutscene sections. Would it be better if there was just a cutscene showing Booker traumatized at discovering the racism, o saying to Elizabeth how happy he is that she's there? Or for Lara to stand up tall in a cutscene and bellow you those words? No, there are still plenty of ways of telling a story than tying the gamer's hands and having him sit through eight hours worth of cutscenes. That is not to say I don't like cutscenes. I probably enjoy a well-made cutscene as much as the next guy, but I also believe those are not the only way to tell a story. And in some cases its better than cutscene storytelling.

I remember the moment in Spec Ops: The Line where you find one of you friends hung by an angry crowd. He dies in agony. The protagonist is sad and angry, and so are you, the player. So when he opens fire on the mob (and he does it on you discretion; no cutscene) you and your protagonist are one. The boundary between you the player, and Walker the videogame protagonist, breaks down and you become him.You feel what he feels. Now THAT is brilliant storytelling, far better than QD's or any other game I've played.Normally when the writers want to make the player feel a certain emotions, or want them to come closer to the protag, they use cutscenes.It didn't happen here, simple gameplay. Infact I feel not cutscene there or B:TS type handholding would have made that scene better, it would have made it worse. Heck from a technical point of view the scene is nothing special, it has average graphics, average animation and not world-famous actor providing voice. Yet it will remain with me for quite a while.

Modifié par pirate1802, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:46 .

[Eterna]

Quantic Dream is not known for their gameplay. Your first mistake was expecting it. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 27 octobre 2013 - 08:04 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

I knew what they are known for, I expected a stronger connection with Jodie which wasn't the case for me. partially because of lacking gameplay, partially because of hopping between different time periods.