Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Turnsky on August 01, 2006, 09:27:57 am
-
okay, this is a broad one, split into numbered mini rants.
1) ever notice that in most games, even ones touted as having a "gripping storyline" (blah blah blah), tends to fall far short of the mark? and the single-player experience plays second banana to the sometimes "tacked on" often mediocre reviewed multiplayer component?
or even, the ones that have NO single player element fails to rise to expectations, leaving the player sitting on their chair with a blank expression on their face, feeling somewhat cheated at the sight of the anticlimatic ending of a game when they finally slog through the umpteenth familiar looking corridor?
the episodic content of HL2 is excepted in this, as it seems they're trying to give it an cinematic feel, and fleshing out the story that they should've done in HL2 itself (don't get on my case about having to LOOK for the story, i looked, it filled NO gaps, infact it made more plot holes than anything else)
2) also, with the prospect of yet another bakers dozen of WW2 based games being released anytime soon has left me wondering, just how much "Story" is there to World War two?, and how long until players themselves will be able to experience the sheer utter MISERY people suffered in that conflict? i mean, sure WW2 is interesting and all, but making discs upon discs upon discs worth of games about it is making light of something very serious to a lot of people.
3) I've also noticed a disturbing lack of "feeling" in games, i mean something that looks like a lot of care and attention was put into it, to make it stand apart from the crowd, you guys know what i mean, don't you?.. it's what made many of the older lucasarts adventures stand out in a sea of interactive fictions, it's what made grim fandango stand out, what made the fallout games stand out that special something that will make you one day, after a long while, take the case out of your collection, blow the dust off it, install it, and play it, and smile at the memories that it brought to you.
The prospect of the new Sam & Max game is a hopeful one, but i wonder how much of its charm will survive when it finally comes out.
In closing, i guess i'm just the sort of person who wants to sit back for a few minutes, and marvel at just the epic scale of the whole thing, to think, to just enjoy the game's story for its feel(cinematic or otherwise), and not just how to duck bullets and high explosives, etc.
I guess games are failing to capture people's attention the way they used to.
-
We share your pain.
-
Yes indeed. Ever since Sony's Playstation said "Hey! Look at my shiny graphics!" I've seen a huge decline in game quality.
-
Seconded. It seems that games with good gameplay have poor stories, while ones with good stories take a hit to gameplay.
Best example: Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2. Anyone play the FFXII demo? The controls just felt wrong to me... I can understand the drive for innovation, but it just didn't feel like their new system was "working" for the series.
-
3) I've also noticed a disturbing lack of "feeling" in games, i mean something that looks like a lot of care and attention was put into it, to make it stand apart from the crowd, you guys know what i mean, don't you?.. it's what made many of the older lucasarts adventures stand out in a sea of interactive fictions, it's what made grim fandango stand out, what made the fallout games stand out that special something that will make you one day, after a long while, take the case out of your collection, blow the dust off it, install it, and play it, and smile at the memories that it brought to you.
The prospect of the new Sam & Max game is a hopeful one, but i wonder how much of its charm will survive when it finally comes out.
The first Homeworld and C&C had that feeling. The problem is that games today are always focusing more on the graphics instead of anything else, tell me how many recent games had a incredible story? Not good, but a incredible one. The worst thing is that there are many games that are really good (all around, gameplay and story) but they dont sell too much because they're not shiny enough (this is not FS2's case).
About WW2 games, it should be really easy to make game of that period with a real story but the problem is that most of these games boil down to mindless shooting, Call of Duty 1 & 2 could have a nice story simply because of those letters before each level, but it didnt. How many WW2 games are FPS and RTS? Its seems that the whole thing is simply restricted to just these two genres.
The Metal Gear series, IMO, is an exception to this rule, you can really see the whole effort that went into making each of them, the characters, story, etc.
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
-
I bought V and VI as part of a collectors' edition thing. The save feature was bugged. Hence they were returned, post-haste. I still want to play them though. :(
-
*Hits TheSleeve with multiple beam cannons (BFReds, something that totally ignores the anti-flame suit he's using).*
Yeah, that's got to hurt. :P
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
I dislike the lot of them. The storylines are dull at best, and without that they have nothing except some pretty pictures. I like Tactics though.
-
3) I've also noticed a disturbing lack of "feeling" in games, i mean something that looks like a lot of care and attention was put into it, to make it stand apart from the crowd, you guys know what i mean, don't you?.. it's what made many of the older lucasarts adventures stand out in a sea of interactive fictions, it's what made grim fandango stand out, what made the fallout games stand out that special something that will make you one day, after a long while, take the case out of your collection, blow the dust off it, install it, and play it, and smile at the memories that it brought to you.
The prospect of the new Sam & Max game is a hopeful one, but i wonder how much of its charm will survive when it finally comes out.
I agree for the most part, but there are still a handful of exceptions if you look around a bit. Chronicles of Riddick and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory (the latter mainly just for its level design) fit that criteria well IMO.
That being said though, I definitely wish we had more adventure games of any kind. Almost all the adventure games I have played have been memorable in some way.
One other trend I'm not too happy about is how multiplayer FPSs have in general become quite slow paced, often due to a supposed emphasis on "realism." I'm hoping UT2007 will change this.
-
Yes, gaming is in a decline; focus has been shifted from making good games to making games that sell. But it's always been a case of finding the gems amongst the rubble, especially in regard to storylines. It's that way with the entire entertainment industry right now, and while it's certainly gotten worse recently, it's not like we were drowning in classics a few years ago either. The reason past years seem so much brighter is because you've forgotten all the games that were either disappointing or just weren't very good.
There are still games around that possess genuine 'feeling'. Case in point: Shadow of the Colossus. With only a handful of characters and sparse smattering of dialogue the game managed to fit more emotion and depth than any number of wordy, epic fantasy trilogies with gazillion dollar budgets. Games like Perimeter and Beyond Good & Evil are still out there, brilliant despite the fact that most people you'd care to ask would never have heard of them. They're harder to find now more than ever, yes, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
The main thing here, of course, is the sudden focus on graphics. It's a novelty that, once the graphics have gotten so good they can't improve much anymore (a boiling point that I think will be reached within a couple of years), will wear out and attention will return to gameplay and story. This is a growing period for the industry. It's having teething pains, that's all.
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
I dislike the lot of them. The storylines are dull at best, and without that they have nothing except some pretty pictures. I like Tactics though.
Tatics was incredible but they didnt put enough effort in it as with the other FFs, the story could have been great but they try to do too many things that it ends up confusing everything and leaving god know's how many plotholes at the end. So much potential wasted. :(
-
3) I've also noticed a disturbing lack of "feeling" in games, i mean something that looks like a lot of care and attention was put into it, to make it stand apart from the crowd, you guys know what i mean, don't you?.. it's what made many of the older lucasarts adventures stand out in a sea of interactive fictions, it's what made grim fandango stand out, what made the fallout games stand out that special something that will make you one day, after a long while, take the case out of your collection, blow the dust off it, install it, and play it, and smile at the memories that it brought to you.
The prospect of the new Sam & Max game is a hopeful one, but i wonder how much of its charm will survive when it finally comes out.
The first Homeworld and C&C had that feeling. The problem is that games today are always focusing more on the graphics instead of anything else, tell me how many recent games had a incredible story? Not good, but a incredible one. The worst thing is that there are many games that are really good (all around, gameplay and story) but they dont sell too much because they're not shiny enough (this is not FS2's case).
My absolute top favorite games in terms of story all have reasonably outdated or older graphics: Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Homeworld, and FS2 (sans SCP). The only exception to this rule that I've found was Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, which was terrific in terms of story, character development, and gameplay, but still had excellent graphics.
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
I dislike the lot of them. The storylines are dull at best, and without that they have nothing except some pretty pictures. I like Tactics though.
We now have a difference of opinion which must now be settled.
*Puts together his M107 Barret*
-
My absolute top favorite games in terms of story all have reasonably outdated or older graphics: Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Homeworld, and FS2 (sans SCP). The only exception to this rule that I've found was Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, which was terrific in terms of story, character development, and gameplay, but still had excellent graphics.
Yeah, lots of the games that I have that present a good story are outdade when it comes to graphics, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 hold's one the best stories that I've seen but are old. The whole C&C series are a good example too. The first Kotor is another exception, when you find out who you are, now that was impressive. :yes:
Edit: Dark Reign had tons of background story, does anyone here played it?
-
The main thing here, of course, is the sudden focus on graphics. It's a novelty that, once the graphics have gotten so good they can't improve much anymore (a boiling point that I think will be reached within a couple of years), will wear out and attention will return to gameplay and story. This is a growing period for the industry. It's having teething pains, that's all.
I agree with everything you say here, but I don't think graphics will reach their limit that soon. Well let me rephrase that. I don't think visual realism will reach its limit for a very long time. We've still got to overcome the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley). Personally, I think that's going to leave a lot of room for improvement.
So let me explain what I mean by visual realism vs. graphics. A graphic, by its definition, is a flat, motionless picture. In computer games, we draw those pictures on the screen at 30 times per second (more or less). This creates the illusion of motion, and the overall experience we have constitutes the visual realism of that game. Graphics may be nearing their limit, yes, but the realism of those graphics in motion has a rough road ahead.
No matter how good we make a computer model of a person, even in film special effects, we are able to discern it as a fake once it is animated. In the pretty far future, only when it is possible to create and model characters based on musculature, bone structure, etc, with their movements entirely AI-controlled (as opposed to motion-captured animations), we will cause them to act in a lifelike way, and will truly overcome the valley. We will actually think and feel that the character on the screen is a living, breathing person. What a trip that will be.
Just think about the complexity that goes into the motion of a human... and how do we duplicate it to trick the viewer into thinking that person is real? They must breathe properly, speeding up when exerting themselves, slowing down when resting. The intake of the air swells their lungs, which react mechanically with their flesh to produce visible motion to an observer. When they talk, move, or just stand around, they are idly (and subconsciously) shifting their body weight, moving their appendages, and focusing their eyes on different things.
Several developers have attemped to emulate these idle motions as preset animations, and have in fact animated entire characters based on motion capture alone. But think of the possiblities when motion is controlled entirely by AI!
AI says "move your hand upwards." The virtual bicep flexes, along with the anterior deltoid, and the rigid bone structure causes the arm and hand to move in the desired way. But during this motion, a projectile comes in at the character, and the AI redirects the hand to shield its eyes. All this time, the rest of the body is acting in a realistic way.
Maybe I'm going a little overboard, but what I'm trying to get at is that even when we reach the point where a stationary human model looks real on a computer screen, once set into motion, we become aware that it is in fact a fake.
But someday, we'll have the processing power (and programming capabilities) to allow AI to bridge the gap.
I, for one, am excited.
But, that's the long term. As for the short term, I totally agree with you. I sense, and hope for, a gameplay revolution in the next decade. A renaissance, if you will, of the golden age of gaming. I have a dream that someday, there will be no more "shiny," "purdy" eye candy to go around, and we will be forced to judge games not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
...in the meantime I'll be playing super nintendo.
-
Yes, gaming is in a decline; focus has been shifted from making good games to making games that sell.
It's not just games, this has been affecting the whole entertainment industry including movies and whatnot. When the men in suits realize the how much money can be milked, that marks the turning point of an industry. And money-milking won't stop until joe and jane averages wake up.
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
I dislike the lot of them. The storylines are dull at best, and without that they have nothing except some pretty pictures. I like Tactics though.
We now have a difference of opinion which must now be settled.
*Puts together his M107 Barret*
I say, dost thou challenge a lady to a duel? Have at thee, ye honorless swine! :p
-
Story-wise the best games I've ever played are Crono Trigger and Final Fantasy 6.
Square had big teams working on the story. Every sentence in the games seems to well-thought about.
New game teams probably have only one person in charge for the story.
Remember Halo? They worked out the graphics first and admitted that they had no story yet. (Ok, Halo turned out to have a good story twist in the end though.)
Some games don't need a good story.
Wing Commander has a really cheap story. (Cat aliens attack... ) But it's still interesting, as it's brought to the player on cinematic level. And I'm not limiting that to the cutscenes.
Actually I think the Freespace story isn't great too, but it's exciting for sure,
-
Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
*Stares coldly while priming the hand portable fission cannon*
No no no, Why did you have to ruin my day..............
-
I agree with everything you say here, but I don't think graphics will reach their limit that soon. Well let me rephrase that. I don't think visual realism will reach its limit for a very long time. We've still got to overcome the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley). Personally, I think that's going to leave a lot of room for improvement.
That's true. What I mean is I think it'll only be a couple of years before it's no longer profitable to pool all your resources into graphics. Right now visuals are developing at a rate almost faster than companies can develop them. Fairly soon that's going to slow down and we're going to see less of a technological gap between games. (And incidentally, that'll also give developers an opportunity to focus on artistry rather than the graphics technology itself, which will provide a solution to the problem of the Uncanny Valley.)
With regard to Final Fantasy, while they do seem to put a lot of effort into their stories, they are (with a couple of exceptions) overwhelmingly generic and shallow. This doesn't really make them bad -- it's just that there are far superior fantasy stories out there.
-
I don't really mind if the story isn't all that great, just as long as the game has at least a few 'Holy ****!!' moments. Y'know, moments like in Ocarina when you emerge from the Temple of Time after 7 years to see an utterly ravaged Hyrule, or when the surprisingly cool Flood first attack in the original Halo, or when you finally get to see the Sath in all her daemonic beaty when she jumps in through the wreckage of the Knossos.
As long as the game has at least 2 or 3 moments like these, I don't really mind either way. The unfortunate fact is that i've not had nearly as many 'Holy ****' moments in this past generation as I really should have.
-
The last 'holy ****' moment I can think of, games wise, is the storming of Stalingrad scene (not the landing mission, but where you get sent on a suicide run into MG-42s across Red Square) of the original Call of Duty. Nothing else comes to mind; even HL2 I think lacked any truly intense moments.
-
The last 'holy ****' moment I can think of, games wise, is the storming of Stalingrad scene (not the landing mission, but where you get sent on a suicide run into MG-42s across Red Square) of the original Call of Duty.
Ah yes, twas indeed a great moment in gaming.
Nothing else comes to mind; even HL2 I think lacked any truly intense moments.
HL2? No. Episode 1? Did you see the Dark Energy Reactor?!
-
I have no intention of playing or buying another Steam based game after the horrors of previous installation, so no, not seen Ep.1.
-
I have no intention of playing or buying another Steam based game after the horrors of previous installation, so no, not seen Ep.1.
hence why having a hard copy of the game will defeat any internet delivery system
-
Okay, gimme 5 minutes, i'll entice you into buying it...
Edit: Okay, fine. Your loss. Why you're passing up a damn good game and essentially what HL2 should have been because you dislike Steam [which really isn't all that bad, as long as you don't use it often], i'll never know.
-
Okay, gimme 5 minutes, i'll entice you into buying it...
no you won't, so don't even try.
-
HL2: Ep1 is a good game, but as aldo said, Steam isn't anything great at all. as i've stated before, you can get it on a disc, instead of purchasing it over steam (it's completely standalone from HL2), but that's your choice, aldo, i'm sure you have better things to do than to gripe about what is wrong with steam (it's easy to praise it 'cuz there's not much to list that's actually good about it! :p )
-
Best example: Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2. Anyone play the FFXII demo? The controls just felt wrong to me... I can understand the drive for innovation, but it just didn't feel like their new system was "working" for the series.
I played through the full game. FF12 was disappointing in almost all respects for me. The active battle system, surprisingly, was even more tedious than the turn-based combat of previous FF games. I think it's because turn-based combat gives the player some time to think and plan (that's what I liked about FFX's battle system), while FF12's gameplay just relies on clever gambits (basically a simple scripting system for characters) and heal spamming. The most disapointing part of the game was the boring plot and almost complete lack of character development (I'll stick to FFVIII for that). OTOH, the cutscenes with airships (and the airships in FF12 are more like air-battleships and air-carriers) were amazingly cool. I don't think I'll be buying FF13 though (mainly because I don't want to buy a PS3).
-
The last 'holy ****' moment I can think of, games wise, is the storming of Stalingrad scene (not the landing mission, but where you get sent on a suicide run into MG-42s across Red Square) of the original Call of Duty. Nothing else comes to mind; even HL2 I think lacked any truly intense moments.
If we're talking 'holy ****' moments, then I'd have to say Pacific Assault for the entire Pearl Harbor sequence (or at least the PT half; watching the Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona get pounded all while gunning down swarms of Zeros never gets old) and most of Tarawa. The Chicago nuking in RA2, the first Beast subversion in Cataclysm, innumerable moments in Homeworld, and the Dominators' activation in Yuri's Revenge all fall into the same category.
-
Look at the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that gameplay took a hit post FFX-2.
Personally, I can't play anything after VI. Even VII rubs me the wrong way.
*Puts on anti-flame suit* :nervous:
I dislike the lot of them. The storylines are dull at best, and without that they have nothing except some pretty pictures. I like Tactics though.
Tatics was incredible but they didnt put enough effort in it as with the other FFs, the story could have been great but they try to do too many things that it ends up confusing everything and leaving god know's how many plotholes at the end. So much potential wasted. :(
This is my point. The great thing that makes Tactics good is that it does not rely on a story at all, it has a great gameplay system that is a joy to play and a hell of a lot of fun.
-
I agree but at the same moment it could've a incredible story, full with character delevopment and all, but it doesnt, I'm just saying it could have been better, much better. Also it has one the best soundtracks I've seen. :yes:
-
In addition to the story taking a hit in a lot of games, it seems by association, that character development has gone downhill too. It just seems that the characters are there to avert a crisis by coincidence, rather than the fact that they have any real personal motivations. That's what I liked about FFX, every main character in your party had reason for wanting to be there. They weren't just put there by a game designer just to create a story. Games with no character development tend to have a very contrived feel to them. That bugs me immensely.
-
That is because character development is as much a part of a story as anything else -- in fact, most of the time characters are more important than the story itself. Saying sensible character development is important for a story is kind of like saying it is important for people to have faces. And organs.
It's a common mistake of poor writers (including myself) to use characters as sock puppets for the sake of delivering the story, and this is unfortunately why we see a lot of it in games.
-
I think the problem is that computer games are going though a stage of 'it's just like being in a movie!', when what they should be doing is trying to make into just like being in a computer game.
Computers have incredible powers, and yet I haven't seen anything commercially to challenge ideas such as Zero-Gravity pool or The Incredible Machine, which were released in the 80's originally. Nowadays, every FPS wants to be like an action movie, every RTS wants to be Lord of the Rings. Too much time trying to make computer games realistic, not enough realising the sheer joy of a computer is that they don't have to be. I can understand that RTS can only 'look' a certain way as can FPS, but the actual elements of gameplay are all mirroring each other, a new innovation these days seems to be involved with how the game looks/interacts not with how the game plays.
Everyone is calling 'Portal' an innovative idea, and it is for this day and age, but, compare the gameplay to the 80's and you'll see they've learned from the past, it's a simplistic idea that uses a computer's ability to do the 'impossible'.
-
Remember Halo? They worked out the graphics first and admitted that they had no story yet. (Ok, Halo turned out to have a good story twist in the end though.)
Really? Considering that Halo basically shares the same story as Marathon I find that hard to believe.
-
Remember Halo? They worked out the graphics first and admitted that they had no story yet. (Ok, Halo turned out to have a good story twist in the end though.)
Really? Considering that Halo basically shares the same story as Marathon I find that hard to believe.
"Ugh, guys we've got this cool engine but no game to go with it."
"Yeah you're right. So it's got guns right?"
"Right."
"Hmmm..."
"Errr.."
"Oh I've got it!"
"Tell me!"
"Remember that other game we did?"
"Yeah yeah."
"Let's do that."
"But Oni wouldn't work very well as an FPS."
"No dumbass, Marathon."
"Oooo okay." *toddles off*
-
The problem with most "gripping storylines," imo, is that their "storyline" consists of about maybe 20 pages of super detailed backstory, with about three pages of actual in-game story and development.
-
It's probably a lot easier to write a backstory/cinematic than to actually try and tell the story through ingame events.
Just listen to HL2 Ep1s development commentary and you'll hear about the problems they had getting the user to look/listen/notice certain things... like creating "gates" that trap the user in a certain area so they have to be present as part of the story unfolds. It's all pretty interesting.
-
It's a common mistake of poor writers (including myself) to use characters as sock puppets for the sake of delivering the story, and this is unfortunately why we see a lot of it in games.
Agreed. Characters need to be more than just people with names that happen to be involved in some sort of conflict. They've got to have personal goals, both immediate and long-term, to avoid being just the guy that pops up on screen every now and then to deliver some sort of snappy one-liner relevant to the situation, which is, unfortunately, what a lot of characters tend to turn into.
For example, a character sets out from whatever normal setting he was once involved in focused on accomplishing X. On the way, he encounters a need to accomplish Y as well to help him better accomplish X. Later on, Z happens, which changes his motives for accomplishing X. That's really the best that I can describe it; I've never been too terribly excellent a writer myself.
-
It's a common mistake of poor writers (including myself) to use characters as sock puppets for the sake of delivering the story, and this is unfortunately why we see a lot of it in games.
That's what I'm talking about. I hate that.
Agreed. Characters need to be more than just people with names that happen to be involved in some sort of conflict. They've got to have personal goals, both immediate and long-term, to avoid being just the guy that pops up on screen every now and then to deliver some sort of snappy one-liner relevant to the situation, which is, unfortunately, what a lot of characters tend to turn into.
For example, a character sets out from whatever normal setting he was once involved in focused on accomplishing X. On the way, he encounters a need to accomplish Y as well to help him better accomplish X. Later on, Z happens, which changes his motives for accomplishing X.
This is how character development should be done. This is what you don't see anymore.
-
In addition to the story taking a hit in a lot of games, it seems by association, that character development has gone downhill too. It just seems that the characters are there to avert a crisis by coincidence, rather than the fact that they have any real personal motivations.
It's always been that way. Played many of the SNES RPGs? Though people generally hail the SNES as the ultimate console for RPGs, it also had its fair share of horrible storylines that people don't remember/notice (primarily because most SNES RPGs were never localized). For example, I've been playing some Tales of Phantasia recently. That game's plot is driven by coincidence and cliche more than anything else. Another example is Romancing Saga 3. It's a great game with a unique battle system, but it really has no significant plot or character development (despite having something like 20 playable characters).
That's what I liked about FFX, every main character in your party had reason for wanting to be there. They weren't just put there by a game designer just to create a story. Games with no character development tend to have a very contrived feel to them. That bugs me immensely.
I agree that character development is important for an engaging game, but I also don't think it's an absolute requirement. For example, the Freespace series has a pretty well-presented storyline despite having virtually no character development. Many good RPGs will feature silent protagonists (e.g. Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest), but often have a very good story anyway (I'm not a fan of silent protagonists though).
-
This is how character development should be done. This is what you don't see anymore.
I wouldn't say that. Look at any Silent Hill game, or the Legacy of Kain series or the new Prince of Persia games. In fact, as a whole the Prince is probably the most dynamic character in any series I've played. In Two Thrones he has his own motivations, goals and opinions, and unlike the usual 'perfect hero' protagonist, is in fact a very flawed personality and comes off far more real as a result. On top of this, the entire story of Two Thrones is focused on the Prince's character rather than what's happening around him, and very little attention is payed to events themselves. While this equally single-minded approach has its flaws as well (it results in every other character in the game being comparatively flat, for instance), it's certainly far closer to the mark than most games get.
Games like this have always been rare, and while the current generation's mindset certainly isn't helping, I think it's unfair to say stories like this don't exist anymore.
I agree that character development is important for an engaging game, but I also don't think it's an absolute requirement. For example, the Freespace series has a pretty well-presented storyline despite having virtually no character development. Many good RPGs will feature silent protagonists (e.g. Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest), but often have a very good story anyway (I'm not a fan of silent protagonists though).
I half-agree with you here. Well done characters are the player's emotional connection to the story; without that, the story, no matter how deep and original, will seem emotionless and distant. Conversely, brilliant characters will lend colour to even a mundane story. In the case of Freespace, the lack of characters is one of the reasons why I think FS1 has quite a poor story. FS2 is different here, because we're connected to the plot by the character of Admiral Bosch. No, there's not much character development in his monologues, but in them we come to understand he has very real beliefs and very real motivations, and so we sympathise with him -- and as a result, the story as well. In the case of your latter example, those games often have other characters which connect the player. The protagonist doesn't have to be the only dynamic character in the game.
-
In all honesty, there are only a few memorable characters in FS, Bosch Snipes Command and Petrarch, the others are just faces to ships wich function as plot devices.
-
In the case of Freespace, the lack of characters is one of the reasons why I think FS1 has quite a poor story. FS2 is different here, because we're connected to the plot by the character of Admiral Bosch.
I would regard the GTA, the PVN, the Ancients and the Shivans as the 'characters' of Freespace 1. The first three display pride, hatred, fear, hope, despair and determination over the course of the game, and even the Shivans are developed with regards to being the 'Great Preservers.' Although at the beginning the Terrans and Vasudans were locked in anger and hate, by the end they have not only learned to get along with each other, they also display a greater awareness of their role in the cosmos and the danger that their power brings, and a greater understanding of the sacrifice the Shivans make by being the Big Bad Evil for the entire universe. Plus, it is their adaptive natures that allow them to survive and defeat the Shivan onslaught.
While not traditional characters by any means, the four intergalactic races of Freespace approach characters to some degree.
-
2) also, with the prospect of yet another bakers dozen of WW2 based games being released anytime soon has left me wondering, just how much "Story" is there to World War two?, and how long until players themselves will be able to experience the sheer utter MISERY people suffered in that conflict? i mean, sure WW2 is interesting and all, but making discs upon discs upon discs worth of games about it is making light of something very serious to a lot of people.
well of the sea of these annoying games, the only one that really captured the feel sometimes was MoH:Pacific Assault, i was hooked on it, but i cant play it anymore, my DVD is fuxxored... :(
-
While not traditional characters by any means, the four intergalactic races of Freespace approach characters to some degree.
That's fair enough. But I have to ask: if the races are interpreted as characters, doesn't that make them fairly cliched ones? In particular, the arcs of the GTA and PVN are pretty much cookie-cutter space opera.
-
That's fair enough. But I have to ask: if the races are interpreted as characters, doesn't that make them fairly cliched ones? In particular, the arcs of the GTA and PVN are pretty much cookie-cutter space opera.
Oh yes, most definitely. The Terrans and Vasudans fit neatly into ol' "quick, fast, adaptable humans" and "staid, dogmatic, cow-faced aliens." The Ancients - well, their name itself is as cliche as the concept of an all-powerful progenitor race that once ruled the galaxy and left behind remnants of its great, vast civilisation after its unnatural destruction.
What I like, and have always liked, is the Shivans. Yes, their insectoid appearance and hive-mind society is typically inhuman and, as such, distasteful and frightening, but the concept of the Shivans being the Great Preservers as well as, or in fact through, being the Great Destroyers is what saves Freespace from being just "SPACE WAR" for me.
Freespace is a war story, with a clear premise of 'war is hell', something that's reinforced throughout the game. You lose Vasuda, Earth, the Bastion, the Beta Aquilae Installation, many freighters and transports and countless wingmen, all due to war. Yet war is ultimately responsible for our survival; without the Terran-Vasudan war, we never would have honed our fighting skills and our ability to adapt to our enemies' technology to the extent that we could defeat the Great Destroyers. The Shivans in themselves articulate the concept of war being peace - their constant indiscriminate aggression unites warring races against them - an idea we can trace back to Orwell's 1984. But the price of war is not forgotten; the Vasudans, who 'lost' the war, saw their planet, their friends and family, destroyed, while the Terrans, who 'won' the war, saved their planet from destruction - but the soldiers of the GTA are distanced from the families that they protected, physically through the loss of the node but also, more importantly, emotionally through becoming murderers for their species.
That's how I saw it, anyway, and that's why I prefer FS1 to FS2 in terms of story. FS1 had a clearly defined premise and set of ideas behind it, whereas FS2 did not, even though it looked prettier and had Aken Bosch directing the play. Of course, it suffered for being Part 2 of 3 without the Part 3, whereas FS1 works as a single piece... but as it is, nothing brings it out of its cliche of "SPACE WAR."
-
Remember Halo? They worked out the graphics first and admitted that they had no story yet. (Ok, Halo turned out to have a good story twist in the end though.)
Really? Considering that Halo basically shares the same story as Marathon I find that hard to believe.
no, it doesn't, Marathon had more character to it, not to mention plot snippets and such via the behaviour of the AI's and other members of the series cast.
on the side note of freespace characters, Bosch had semi-righteous undertones to his behaviour, while not exactly a three dimensional character in his own right, he seemed rather devoid of emotion, even in the bosch monologues.
Freespace also lacked some degree of atmosphere (no pun intended), in how there was just you, your enemy, and your gunsights, with the odd communication between you, command, some wingmen, and whatnot, give it the same radio chatter styling present in the latter generation of the ace combat series, and the feel changes dramatically, you'd feel that you're not just the only one out there.
onto everything else, Character development is sorely lacking in games these days, the last game i saw with some attempt at character dev was Kotor 2, sadly it was rushed towards the end, in no small part to lucasarts giving the devs 12 months to make the game.
Idealy you'd want to feel some sort of attachment to your characters in a game, and inversely for the antagonists of the piece, you want to hate them, dispise them, pity them, etc.
no amount of pretty graphics will save a game from terrible storytelling.
also, since we're not on GS anymore, i will be the first to say that they wouldn't know a story if it bit them in the ass, just play pariah and try to find yourself a decent story lurking within.. the text on the outer edge of the CD is more compelling.
-
What I like, and have always liked, is the Shivans. Yes, their insectoid appearance and hive-mind society is typically inhuman and, as such, distasteful and frightening, but the concept of the Shivans being the Great Preservers as well as, or in fact through, being the Great Destroyers is what saves Freespace from being just "SPACE WAR" for me.
Well, that at least is something I think most everyone in this community can agree on.
It's interesting you should state clearly defined premise as one of the reasons you prefer FS1 -- the lack of that is exactly what appeals to me about Freespace 2, indicating that this is probably just a matter of taste after all. When you put it like that I can certainly see the appeal of FS1, though.
on the side note of freespace characters, Bosch had semi-righteous undertones to his behaviour, while not exactly a three dimensional character in his own right, he seemed rather devoid of emotion, even in the bosch monologues.
I disagree. I thought the Bosch monologues were drenched in emotion -- mostly sorrow, because Bosch has become demonised by his own species despite the fact that the man's only motive is its salvation. I would say he's resigned to his fate rather than devoid of emotion; he even makes a comment to this effect at one point.
-
I wouldn't say that. Look at any Silent Hill game, or the Legacy of Kain series or the new Prince of Persia games.
Legacy of Kain series had one of the best character devs that I've seen (yes, I suspect to saying this), every one is there for their own reasons, from Kain to Raziel or Mobius and the Elder God to the Nephilim. Silent Hill is all about character dev because each game of the series is for one set of characters, the story is the character development there.
-
Well, that at least is something I think most everyone in this community can agree on.
It's interesting you should state clearly defined premise as one of the reasons you prefer FS1 -- the lack of that is exactly what appeals to me about Freespace 2, indicating that this is probably just a matter of taste after all. When you put it like that I can certainly see the appeal of FS1, though.
Very true. I mean, FS2 isn't entirely without a premise - it's very much about arrogance and Man playing around with things He ought to know not what of, be it Aken Bosch and his ETAK device or GTVA Command exploring the nebula. But it's very much a murkier, more ambiguous story than FS1, with more sophisticated cast and settings.
-
I think character development can sometimes be a little overrated. It adds a lot to a story, but you can certainly have excellent plotlines that don't revolve around specific characters and their personalities. Apart from the FS games, Mission Critical is another example of this.
-
Character development, at the least, is pretty fun. Take NWN. All the characters have a reason for being where they are. In the original game, everyone is around, because A) You pay them, B) The government hires them C) They are sitting around in a big city.
They may not be doing anything, but they definately did stuff. You can ask them about what they did earlier, and one of them monologues about pantsing his friend. Really.
In the second expanision, everyone that is there was there in the earlier games, and the characters get even further developed. (although some things are a bit cheesy.... "Boss?" "Yes Deekin?" "Never mind.." "*persuade check* Come on Deekin, what is it?" "*sucess* Nothing..." "*Persuade check* Please tell me Deekin" "*sucess* STOP THE ADVENTURE! DEEKIN HAS TO GO TO THE RESTROOM!"
Really, it's true!
-
I think character development can sometimes be a little overrated.
Agreed. I'm playing X3-Reunion at the moment and while I've not been doing much of the missions, I'm really enjoying the depth of universe. There isn't much in the way of charachter development (yet) and frankly I don't think it needs it. I'd rather be immersed in a living, breathing world than see a pale shadow of the world and learn all about one guy called Chuck.
-
That's really a completely invalid comparison. X3 puts little importance on story of any sort -- you're talking about being immersed in a game world, which is totally different from being immersed in a story. Whether or not you prefer that is down to personal taste, obviously, but making them out to be the same sort of thing is just wrong. You might as well say, 'Well, this jigsaw puzzle is all well and good, but I would like it better if it could launch ballistic missiles.'
It is a bit worrying that your idea of character development is 'hearing all about one guy called Chuck', but I suppose that goes hand in hand with the surprisingly common notion that in gaming a complicated story must have 30-minute cutscenes.
-
I'm not sure you understood me. I said I'd rather be immersed in a well rounded world than hear a half-baked story about someone that doesn't engage me at all.
Or..
I'd like to hear a detailed story about charachter(s) in a world that supports them well.
But not half and half, it rarely works.
-
Ah. The impression I got was that you were saying character development in general was a waste of time.
-
It depends on the kind of game, really. Games like FS2 don't need a great deal of character development (but if you look, it's there), while many RPGs need it for the story to work. There is nothing more annoying to me than a protagonist who is doing what he is doing because a game designer "said so."
-
Old Tyrian had some interesting character development... now that I think about it, if rather cliche
-
Ah. The impression I got was that you were saying character development in general was a waste of time.
I think a better way of putting it is... there's a time and a place.
Lets take Need For Speed Most Wanted. There are charachters in the game but they're very very shallow indeed. And they don't need to be anything else.
The game - being all about arcade car racing - doesn't need deep charachter involvement to make it work. But something like NWN thrives on it. The trick (for game devs) is to know when to do which.
-
(insert more comic relief)
Would it be half-baked if in FSX we have a Deekin & Dealen Red Tiger cross-over?
Deekin (Alpha2) - "The great Kobold pilot thrusts his ship into subspace with no fear... And then realises he is not knowing, where this particular node, actually leads to... Umm Boss (Alpha1)?"
(later during a surveilance mission)
Deekin (Alpha2) - "Doom Doom Doom, Doomy Doom Doom!"
Deelan (Alpha3) - "Kobold, cease you prattling and maintain radio silence, or I shall fly over to you and smite thee!"
:wtf: :P :lol:
-
Ahh yes, the doom song...
I think I prefer Deekin asking Valen "How come you have horns?"
Then they both talk about all the stuff they survived (I have survived the blades of thousands of enemies questing for my blood!) (Once old boss sat on Deekin!) (I have survived battles with 90% casualties!) (Once Deekin old boss farted, and Deekin stuck head in water pail. Deekin was only kobold in area to survive!)
Ahh, comic relief....
-
Ah. The impression I got was that you were saying character development in general was a waste of time.
I think a better way of putting it is... there's a time and a place.
Lets take Need For Speed Most Wanted. There are charachters in the game but they're very very shallow indeed. And they don't need to be anything else.
The game - being all about arcade car racing - doesn't need deep charachter involvement to make it work. But something like NWN thrives on it. The trick (for game devs) is to know when to do which.
This is what I was talking about. Some games need character development, while others don't.
-
Speaking of 'holy sh!t moments' and NWN (Hordes specifically):
When you finally beat that evil drow lady, and then Mephistopheles pulls a fast one on everybody. :ha:
Or when you finally reach the Knower of Names... one of my favorite things about NWN is that there's a lot of stuff you never see in person. You only hear about it and read about it, and so you have to use your imagination. Excellent case in point being all the legendary stuff you hear about in the 8th hell: the Sleeping Man's journey, Meph throwing those twelve folks hella far, etc. Except that you hear about this stuff and imagine it and get hyped up, and then you actually do see it. Walking into that clearing in the snow, seeing those twelve craters, and realizing the importance of the place, how far I had gone, on foot, THROUGH HELL... that was fun. We need more stuff like that in games.
-
Speaking of 'holy sh!t moments' and NWN (Hordes specifically):
When you finally beat that evil drow lady, and then Mephistopheles pulls a fast one on everybody. :ha:
Or when you finally reach the Knower of Names... one of my favorite things about NWN is that there's a lot of stuff you never see in person. You only hear about it and read about it, and so you have to use your imagination. Excellent case in point being all the legendary stuff you hear about in the 8th hell: the Sleeping Man's journey, Meph throwing those twelve folks hella far, etc. Except that you hear about this stuff and imagine it and get hyped up, and then you actually do see it. Walking into that clearing in the snow, seeing those twelve craters, and realizing the importance of the place, how far I had gone, on foot, THROUGH HELL... that was fun. We need more stuff like that in games.
I agree, that place was beautiful, in how I had worked to get there.
Then Deekin told me to aim lower :hopping:.
I liked telling people: I played this game, where I was in this gigantic battle defending a fort, with an army, in an RPG, then some random deamon sent me to hell. So my character is now in hell. Soooo... How do I get out of hell?
-
Me go gem! :p
-
:wtf:
I believe that hand belongs to me....
Hmm, wonder what happens if I make a female character and go through that part..... (with Aribeth :lol:)
-
Had NWN not started to really bore me I might have been able to tell you...
-
One of my favorite games of all time was, without a doubt, Deus Ex 1. The game had resonably good graphics for the time, but more importantly it had very well developed characters, and also a deep plot and a very complex story.
It also knew just what to show you. My of my biggest "wow" moments was when I first saw the "'Ton" hotel, which was actually the Hilton. They knew what to show you to make you feel like "wow the future really sucks for the US".....