355 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravensword]

Here's a BSN poll for you guys.

[Seival]

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

And I have absolutely opposite feelings about gameplay being part of immersion. After playing Beyond: Two Souls, I found, for example, Mass Effect gameplay quite distant from providing the best immersion level. ME gameplay looked too... sketchy and awkward, I guess, compared to what I had in Beyond. Moving and shooting in ME was fun, but that gameplay never gave me a real feeling that it was me there moving and shooting. I didn't really feel what Shepard felt. But in Beyond I felt each combat like I was really taking part in it...

...Well, and story is not always a combat. In any regular story-driven game non-combat gameplay is only about moving in a room and pressing the same interaction button. But in an interactive movie non-combat scenes we have rich gameplay actually.

Interactive movie uses the whole gamepad for different interactions. Both sticks, each button, even gyroscope and accelerometer. When each interaction is logical and intuitive each action looks like performed by me personally, not by some doll on the screen.

I have a theory why some players don't agree with me here. I believe that being sceptical about interactive movie has the same nature as being sceptical about gamepad vs mouse+keybord. Most PC players don't understand how gamepad can be better. And when they try gamepad in action they feel nothing but frustration. After that they are stating that "it's impossible to play shooters with gamepad" for example. But it's all the matter of habitude. If you played with mouse+keybord the whole life, you can't be good on different type of controller by default. And PC players refuse to understand that gamepad is actually much better than any keybord+mouse, because in keybord+mouse you will never have gyroscope, accelerometer, and vibration-feedback in addition to regular controls.

Well, it really looks like interactive movies vs regular games have the same nature as consoles vs PCs. Well, maybe not the same, but at least very similar.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 01:39 .

[Seival]

Ravensword wrote...

Here's a BSN poll for you guys.

I feel rather sceptical about BSN polls, because too few people are voting there. And most voters are PC players.

[Seival]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Wow, 11 pages (12 now, I guess). Seival threads never fail to bring in the posts.

As for Beyond, judging by the reviews I've read, it takes away most of the things I liked about Heavy Rain (ie protagonist death being a real possibility), so I'm not expecting much out of it whenever I finally do play it (which won't be until a significant price drop).

I already gave an example on the matter here. In Planescape: Torment, an old-school RPG, protagonist is immortal. Lose a combat? No problem - resurrect yourself, come back, and kill them all.

Wanna another example? Ok, Darksiders 2. Death Rider is your protagonist and he can't really die. He is immortal in the same way as Nameless One in Planescape: Torment. But both these games have really good stories.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Seival]

simfamSP wrote...

In Planescape: Torment, an old-school RPG, protagonist is immortal. Lose a combat? No problem - resurrect yourself, come back, and kill them all.

Except that the entire story is about achieving player death. TNO's immortality is part of the plot; and ironically, his mortality is the goal.

...

PST

Aiden being bound to Jodie since she was born is as huge part of the Beyond story, as Nameless One being immortal is a huge part of Planescape story. And both parts were represented through the impossibility to lose.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

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.

I believe that you'll rather not stop bying them, because you see ME1->ME2->ME3 and DA:O->DA2 progression as positive things, just like me.

Things like "ME guns became much varied", or "DA crafting was just moved to NPCs" are nothing more but well-placed illusions of divercity. 95% of ME3 guns' differences are represented through accuracy and rate of fire. They all repeat each other, look too similar in practice. For example, there is almost no difference in performance between Black Widow M98 and Paladin, but the first one is sniper rifle, while the second one is a pistol. They both even weight a lot. They just have different shapes... And DA2, where "craft was moved to NPCs". Compare number of possible items to make in DA:O and DA2. Also, try to find persuasion or tactics skills in DA2. And dialogue wheel is nothing more, but simplified classic dialogue system.

I'm not talking about just graphics and sound. I'm talking about trend of increasing cutscenes/dialogues overall quality and simplifying gameplay parts at the same time. This is movement towards interactive movie standards.

[Seival]

simfamSP wrote...

Seival wrote...

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?

Okay, thanks for the reply.

Here's what I think.

Video games have the potential to be the best story-telling medium there is. Writing for video-games is tricky since there are so many other factors and obstacles that go into the game, ergo, the plot suffers. For a video game to have good writing, you have a great team. I think good writing in a video-game is a huge challenge and I appreciate every bit of it.

Now, let's look at the goal of gaming: to create an interactive experience. That interaction is key to the identity of the medium, whether shooter or puzzle game, you don't have a game without gameplay. Removing elements of gameplay is not an achievement, it's a loss.

Now, Heavy Rain and TWD have interaction. From what I see, Beyond does not. Why? You ask. They're completley the same! No they are not. Sevial, the interactive-medium can be achieved in a number of ways, thus all the different genres there are. Telling a story can be done in a number of ways, thus all the different aspects of narrative. Beyond is not like Heavy Rain, because interaction is superficial, you do not shape the story, you merely view it as it unfolds before you. At least in Heavy Rain and TWD your interactions have meaning, it becomes interaction rather than nonsensical button mashing. Those QTEs, regardless of the context, are as deprived of depth as button mashing in an action game. They take control away from the player.

If these members and reviews are saying the truth, I don't see the fun or impact this game has. If I can go through a combat scene by doing nothing, and make dialogue choices that result i nothing, what is the point of my participation? What is the point of the medium?

These gameplay centred games you took a ****** on can do many things to tell a great story. Cutscenes are uncessary. Look at Baldur's Gate one, where the plot was told purley through gameplay. Your character understands what's happening as you connect the dots. Games have 'art' on their side, they don't need lengthy descriptions or subtext when they use visual aids to enhance their themes, motifs and subtlety. If every video-game developer took advantage of their medium like that, then we'd have amazing games!

Amnesia tells a horrible and twisted story purley through gameplay!
Bastion tells a sad story through gameplay!
Baldur's Gate sends you through a journey with gameplay!
Dark Souls tells a tragic story through gameplay!

It can be done. Cutscenes are uncecssary.

Now, this is just me being objective. I feel that cutscenes are important and need to be added in order to give pacing and focus on the narrative. This is why games have all the advantage of TV and books, they are so versatile that they can be absolutley anything they want. It's a shame that a lot of the times, the writing is given less priority than anything else (but that depends on what the game is trying to be.)

That said, I don't disagree with you. Cutscenes are important. But balance needs to be established. If cutscenes dominate the main game (TWD) allow the player participation beyond pressing a few buttons. The Walking Dead does that perfectly. If gameplay dominates the main game, then allow the narrative to flow with it (Bastion/Amnesia.) Companies need to look at their games, say "right, we want to tell a story" and use every resource they have to enhance it.

The Mad Hanar made a point of books and TV being different. He's right, but TV and games can be awesome in their sneaky ways. The same way G.R.R Martin gives you hints as what's going on; TV and games can use their visual advantage and shorter dialogue to be a lot more subtle in their foreshadowing and themes. If there is a show on Earth I'd point to for an example, it's Breaking Bad, and games? It's Planescape Torment.

Wait, you are telling that The Walking Dead has story-driven gameplay? Good, because The Walking Dead is a regular game that is probably the closest to interactive movie gameplay standards right now. But, unfortunately, this good story has too poor visual part to be called an interactive movie or just a great modern game.

Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate... There was almost no gameplay in these games. Just point and click. Point and click everywhere: combat, dialogues, "exploration". Compared to that Beyond: Two Souls has the most rich and advanced regular gameplay in the history of game development.

Choose any story-driven game, and try to play it skipping each and every cutscene and dialogue. What remains of the game will bore you in matter of hours. There will be no story left.

When someone is trying to "share his Shepard story" on Youtube, is he placing Mass Effect gameplay videos there? No, he is placing videos with cutscenes and dialogues. The same goes for Dragon Age or any other story driven game.

When point of a game is to tell a story, gameplay becomes secondary. But the gameplay has to be rich enough to provide interactivity. And like I said, Beyond: Two Souls utilizes more gameplay mechanics than any avarage regular game. Also, unlike regular games, Beyond fully uses all gamepad capabilities. Beyond gameplay is not just button smashing, it's a large number of logical and intuitive interactions.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 04:37 .

[shockky]

Seival wrote...

Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate... There was almost no gameplay in these games.

Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep posting.

[Eterna]

shockky wrote...

Seival wrote...

Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate... There was almost no gameplay in these games.

Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep posting.

I'm curious, have you ever posted anything meaningful or insightful that helps move the discussion forward or have you always been this negative and useless? 

[shockky]

People in glass houses.

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

I believe that you'll rather not stop bying them, because you see ME1->ME2->ME3 and DA:O->DA2 progression as positive things, just like me.

Things like "ME guns became much varied", or "DA crafting was just moved to NPCs" are nothing more but well-placed illusions of divercity. 95% of ME3 guns' differences are represented through accuracy and rate of fire. They all repeat each other, look too similar in practice. For example, there is almost no difference in performance between Black Widow M98 and Paladin, but the first one is sniper rifle, while the second one is a pistol. They both even weight a lot. They just have different shapes... And DA2, where "craft was moved to NPCs". Compare number of possible items to make in DA:O and DA2. Also, try to find persuasion or tactics skills in DA2. And dialogue wheel is nothing more, but simplified classic dialogue system.

I'm not talking about just graphics and sound. I'm talking about trend of increasing cutscenes/dialogues overall quality and simplifying gameplay parts at the same time. This is movement towards interactive movie standards.

I would rather not stop buying them but I would not spend any money on either of those series if they went that way, and in terms of Mass Effect I'd probably be a rather outspoken critic of that move on the BSN. I do not need you to tell me what I will or will not like.

ME3's guns are not an illusion, it is a fact. Or are you going to tell me that the Talon is essentially the same weapon as the Scorpion? Is the Reegar Carbine the same as the Harrier? Also, Paladin does not weigh much, and the Black Widow can shoot through solid objects by default and hits significantly harder. About the only thing that's the same for them is that they both have 3 shots per clip.

Either way, Mass Effect 1 essentially only had 4 different varieties of weapons anyway.

The dialogue wheel in DA2 was to reduce the number of dialogue options available to you, because they were going to voice the main character which means that you have to cut down on the amount of lines they'd be needing to say from what Origins had. It is a change in the actual delivery method of telling the story, though.

Somebody actually asked me last night which I thought was better between Origins and 2, to which my answer was ultimately Origins. You have more freedom to roleplay your character, and the characters I felt were much better in Origins(although Varric is still awesome).

In game that already had cutscenes and dialogue, you're going to increase the quality as technology improves. This doesn't automatically equal a sign of movement towards interactive movies.

In both Dragon Age and Mass Effect I would argue that dialogue quality hasn't even really changed much. They were always doing a great job of it. Cutscenes haven't changed much either beyond some graphical upgrades, but I've already said that graphical upgrades do not mean a shift towards anything.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

I believe that you'll rather not stop bying them, because you see ME1->ME2->ME3 and DA:O->DA2 progression as positive things, just like me.

Things like "ME guns became much varied", or "DA crafting was just moved to NPCs" are nothing more but well-placed illusions of divercity. 95% of ME3 guns' differences are represented through accuracy and rate of fire. They all repeat each other, look too similar in practice. For example, there is almost no difference in performance between Black Widow M98 and Paladin, but the first one is sniper rifle, while the second one is a pistol. They both even weight a lot. They just have different shapes... And DA2, where "craft was moved to NPCs". Compare number of possible items to make in DA:O and DA2. Also, try to find persuasion or tactics skills in DA2. And dialogue wheel is nothing more, but simplified classic dialogue system.

I'm not talking about just graphics and sound. I'm talking about trend of increasing cutscenes/dialogues overall quality and simplifying gameplay parts at the same time. This is movement towards interactive movie standards.

I would rather not stop buying them but I would not spend any money on either of those series if they went that way, and in terms of Mass Effect I'd probably be a rather outspoken critic of that move on the BSN. I do not need you to tell me what I will or will not like.

ME3's guns are not an illusion, it is a fact. Or are you going to tell me that the Talon is essentially the same weapon as the Scorpion? Is the Reegar Carbine the same as the Harrier? Also, Paladin does not weigh much, and the Black Widow can shoot through solid objects by default and hits significantly harder. About the only thing that's the same for them is that they both have 3 shots per clip.

Either way, Mass Effect 1 essentially only had 4 different varieties of weapons anyway.

The dialogue wheel in DA2 was to reduce the number of dialogue options available to you, because they were going to voice the main character which means that you have to cut down on the amount of lines they'd be needing to say from what Origins had. It is a change in the actual delivery method of telling the story, though.

Somebody actually asked me last night which I thought was better between Origins and 2, to which my answer was ultimately Origins. You have more freedom to roleplay your character, and the characters I felt were much better in Origins(although Varric is still awesome).

In game that already had cutscenes and dialogue, you're going to increase the quality as technology improves. This doesn't automatically equal a sign of movement towards interactive movies.

In both Dragon Age and Mass Effect I would argue that dialogue quality hasn't even really changed much. They were always doing a great job of it. Cutscenes haven't changed much either beyond some graphical upgrades, but I've already said that graphical upgrades do not mean a shift towards anything.

I played through ME Trilogy more than 10 times. I played ME3 multiplayer with different classes and weapons for about one year. And yes, for me all these weapons are pretty much the same in terms of performance. I see no big difference between them, and if BioWare would cut 80% of them I wouldn't noticice the difference. The only thing I cared about weapon-wise during multiplayer matches or singleplayer missions was my damage output. Methods of this damage delivery were pretty much the same: one button to use ability, another button to open fire. Not very exciting in fact.

Yes, exactly, voicing the main character. They had to get rid of excess old-school dialogue system in order to make dialogues look more realistic. Better storytelling quality in cost of number of dialogue options. Simplification of gameplay, improvement of storytelling quality. A sign of little step towards interactive movies... First little step, then another, a years of small steps, and we will come closer and closer. Let's play next gen gemes when they will be released, let's wait for even more next gen games releases, and see where everything is really going... I'm sure that I'm right about the trend. And I'm sure all players will get used to it eventually.

Yes, I really rather believe that you like DA:O more than DA2. But we both know that DA:O-2 wasn't an option. We've got DA2 which is far better than DA:O in terms of telling the story, but also far more simple in terms of gameplay.

Yes, DA2 had disadvantages like really poor environment design, and I really hope BioWare will never make such mistake again. But this is another story.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 09:02 .

[wolfsite]

Seival wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

In Planescape: Torment, an old-school RPG, protagonist is immortal. Lose a combat? No problem - resurrect yourself, come back, and kill them all.

Except that the entire story is about achieving player death. TNO's immortality is part of the plot; and ironically, his mortality is the goal.

...

PST

Aiden being bound to Jodie since she was born is as huge part of the Beyond story, as Nameless One being immortal is a huge part of Planescape story. And both parts were represented through the impossibility to lose.

The main issue here is that you have freedom to explore, to customize the character for a different play experience, and can react to people quite differently in Planescape.

In Beyond people have openly came out and even showed that choices you make can have little to no effect to the story as the outcomes are preset and many have even shown that you can put the controller down and do nothing and still complete sections without any negative effects.

Planescape you can choose to help or hinder others which can affect the story and experience, you can choose to talk your way out of some segments or fight your way.  You can go back into the game and hunt for secret paths or people you may have missed.

[Kalas747]

Planescape is being played almost 20 years later! How are you comparing these games, OP won't even remember this game in 1 year. We saw how quickly he kicked TLoU under the bus, same will happen to beyond two souls.

[Morty Smith]

The problem lies in the thread-title itself. The "best" of anything will always be a position of solitude.

Neverending sadness.

Modifié par Kroitz, 27 octobre 2013 - 09:14 .

[Seival]

wolfsite wrote...

Seival wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

In Planescape: Torment, an old-school RPG, protagonist is immortal. Lose a combat? No problem - resurrect yourself, come back, and kill them all.

Except that the entire story is about achieving player death. TNO's immortality is part of the plot; and ironically, his mortality is the goal.

...

PST

Aiden being bound to Jodie since she was born is as huge part of the Beyond story, as Nameless One being immortal is a huge part of Planescape story. And both parts were represented through the impossibility to lose.

The main issue here is that you have freedom to explore, to customize the character for a different play experience, and can react to people quite differently in Planescape.

In Beyond people have openly came out and even showed that choices you make can have little to no effect to the story as the outcomes are preset and many have even shown that you can put the controller down and do nothing and still complete sections without any negative effects.

Planescape you can choose to help or hinder others which can affect the story and experience, you can choose to talk your way out of some segments or fight your way.  You can go back into the game and hunt for secret paths or people you may have missed.

Freedom to explore and character customization also have limits even in games like EVE Online. And by the way, EVE Online is a nice example of what happens to the game when gameplay dominates. This game has no story at all, just constant farming, grinding, and playing the "user interface game". It's a game about gameplay. A Skinner box, if you know what I mean.

Saying that interactions and choices don't have effect on Beyond story is like saying that choices have no effect on Mass Effect story. Kill the council in ME1, and the other council will be represented in ME3. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Shepard let the original council die. The same with Wrex and his brother. Kill Wrex, and his brother will replace him... Both Beyond and Mass Effect have stories which depend on actions you perform. Different actions - different variants of story flow.

Wanna example from Beyond? Ok. In one of the episodes Jodie has to escape. At some point she can avoid being caprured on a bridge. If she failed - next scene will be inside a CIA car. In that car Aiden can dominate one of soldiers to shoot the others, or dominate the driver to make a crash. But if Jodie succeeded on that bridge, then next scene will be in a town istead of car. There will be an ambush and completely different combat scene where Aiden throws and explode cars, dominates soldiers to use them against other soldiers, helps Jodie to hide in a house, and dominate a pilot to crash a copter upon the remaining soldiers. During this time you play as Aiden and all mentioned actions are actual gameplay. Quite different variants of the same episode, don't you think so?

You may play Beyond differently and find something new that you didn't see during previous playthroughs.

Modifié par Seival, 27 octobre 2013 - 09:48 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Seival wrote...

In one of the episodes Jodie has to escape. At some point she can avoid being caprured on a bridge. If she failed - next scene will be inside a CIA car.

Fascinating, I've played this scene myself and watched two other people play it, and I honestly wouldn't have thought it was possible to fail in this scene at all. 

What I don't really know so far is wether there are actually ways of influencing Beyond's story beyond taking slightly diverging paths in completing the individual scenes. I mean, you can save people now and then, and you can treat the romance options differently, but from what I've seen that doesn't even influence your options at the very end.

[Eterna]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Seival wrote...

In one of the episodes Jodie has to escape. At some point she can avoid being caprured on a bridge. If she failed - next scene will be inside a CIA car.

Fascinating, I've played this scene myself and watched two other people play it, and I honestly wouldn't have thought it was possible to fail in this scene at all. 

What I don't really know so far is wether there are actually ways of influencing Beyond's story beyond taking slightly diverging paths in completing the individual scenes. I mean, you can save people now and then, and you can treat the romance options differently, but from what I've seen that doesn't even influence your options at the very end.

If Ryan dies you lose out on a ending option. Pretty obvious, but still. 

Also, your choices in a certain chapter effevts how much pf the chapter you see, I believe if you get caught you miss about 15minutes of the chapter and it ends. If you don't get caught the events of the chapter shapes how Jodies and Ryans relationship plays out. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 27 octobre 2013 - 11:56 .

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

I played through ME Trilogy more than 10 times. I played ME3 multiplayer with different classes and weapons for about one year. And yes, for me all these weapons are pretty much the same in terms of performance. I see no big difference between them, and if BioWare would cut 80% of them I wouldn't noticice the difference. The only thing I cared about weapon-wise during multiplayer matches or singleplayer missions was my damage output. Methods of this damage delivery were pretty much the same: one button to use ability, another button to open fire. Not very exciting in fact.

Yes, exactly, voicing the main character. They had to get rid of excess old-school dialogue system in order to make dialogues look more realistic. Better storytelling quality in cost of number of dialogue options. Simplification of gameplay, improvement of storytelling quality. A sign of little step towards interactive movies... First little step, then another, a years of small steps, and we will come closer and closer. Let's play next gen gemes when they will be released, let's wait for even more next gen games releases, and see where everything is really going... I'm sure that I'm right about the trend. And I'm sure all players will get used to it eventually.

Yes, I really rather believe that you like DA:O more than DA2. But we both know that DA:O-2 wasn't an option. We've got DA2 which is far better than DA:O in terms of telling the story, but also far more simple in terms of gameplay.

Yes, DA2 had disadvantages like really poor environment design, and I really hope BioWare will never make such mistake again. But this is another story.

That you only care about min/maxing your setup does not take away the fact that the guns were in fact more varied in ME3 than they were in 1 or 2.

Yes Dragon Age 2 had a voiced character, but I also felt that was a drawback because it gave less freedom over being able to roleplay your character due to less responses open to you. The combat was made to be more fast paced and visceral, although I don't know that I would say it was simplified a whole lot.

Also, keep in mind that moving towards interactive movies is not the only reason for simplifying gameplay.

If it's the way that story heavy games go in the next generation, then I'll be done with story heavy games outside of the indie scene which I'm confident will fill the gap that would have been left by the AAA market doing that.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

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.

Yes, we shall. It's inevitable. The trend has already been demonstrated. At first you thought Mass Effect 3 had a terrible story and ending. Then you decided Mass Effect 3 was the best game ever, a new revolution in story telling. The year after the Last Of Us is the new standard. A few months later, it's Beyond: Two Souls. I can say with absolute certainty that in the next few months Beyond: Two Souls will make way for a new game, and since the vast, vast majority of games aren't interactive movies, the next best thing is going to be an RPG or some open world shooter like MGS V, and you'll forget or ignore everything you said about how magical interactive movies are.