Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Colonol Dekker on March 02, 2015, 11:36:25 am
-
Top 10 Upcoming Space Sims:
From a while back.....
-
I am actually a bit tired of these go anywhere, do anything, build your fleet, land on planets, etc. games. A LOT of it seems a bit too much me too, but frankly, I think most of them are trying to bite off more than they can chew. I'd rather have a good, albeit somewhat limited game, than a game I can do literally anything I can think of, but will remain in beta seemingly forever with features only mostly good.
Like how I'd much rather the guy who makes Dwarf Fortress, would make a decent UI before trying to model the universe. I also don't get all the Star Citizen hype, most of the features are still mainly just on paper; I don't know why you'd get excited for them before you actually know it's in and working.
-
Elite dangerous and space engineers meet all my needs.
I don't own either of them though.
-
I didn't realize Starmade was free (during alpha) until I saw this
Cheers Dekker, you've ruined my productivity which was zero but still
-
Tooling around is fun and all but...
Tell me a story, spin me a yarn, immerse me in a epic, I want to breathe in a universe of tales like a heady wine.
-
Tooling around is fun and all but...
Tell me a story, spin me a yarn, immerse me in a epic, I want to breathe in a universe of tales like a heady wine.
I am actually a bit tired of these go anywhere, do anything, build your fleet, land on planets, etc. games. A LOT of it seems a bit too much me too, but frankly, I think most of them are trying to bite off more than they can chew. I'd rather have a good, albeit somewhat limited game, than a game I can do literally anything I can think of, but will remain in beta seemingly forever with features only mostly good.
Like how I'd much rather the guy who makes Dwarf Fortress, would make a decent UI before trying to model the universe. I also don't get all the Star Citizen hype, most of the features are still mainly just on paper; I don't know why you'd get excited for them before you actually know it's in and working.
Gotta second these posts.
-
I agree when I'm in the mood to ingratiate myself into a bit of juicy fiction. That time will come again. I am currently in the mood to build a giant evil space chicken and fly a bigger rocket into its chicken butt.
-
Gotta second these posts.
Exactly. I get bored with those "do anything" games pretty quickly. The question that naturally follows is "what exactly?", and games without a story can't really answer that. I don't usually have patience for trade empire building, either. A well written "campaign" of sorts can add a lot to any game, but with so many multiplayer-only and pure sandbox games, this seems to be forgotten (since I play games mostly for stories, this trend is really frustrating). Those games that do have a story are often low budget indies which tend to have poor gameplay and/or graphics (sometimes disguised as "old-school" sometimes not).
I'd love a space game that would combine a good story with modern graphics and good gameplay. That said, this forum's projects section is pretty much the only place where those can be readily found. :) Star Citizen seems to be shaping up to be something like this, but it's still a long way off.
-
I disagree that games without a story can't really answer the question "what exactly" since the "what exactly" is player defined rather than developer defined
Do anything games are basically giving the player a universe to build themselves a story, rather than having the story there but subject to small changes given how the player acts and reacts within the preset but wider range of instances.
It's the difference between reading a story, reading a story and choosing what your character does, and creating your story
Linear --> Open --> Infinite
Anyone can read or experience a story, but not everyone can write their own.
-
The thing is, by handing off story creation to player, games like this become a lot less deep. Such a story would usually lack meaningful characters besides the player, for instance. They would also be strictly restricted by gameplay and engine limitations. TBH, I find this approach lazy. Most "sandbox" games lead to bland, generic stories that carry little meaning, because the game universe will never be as dynamic as our own. I'd rather have a pre-written, nonlinear (branching) story that the player can influence, but not completely control. This kind of story can have much more depth than "procedural" ones available in most sandbox games.
-
The games were never meant to be deep (in terms of story) so I don't see why you're looking for depth in story in a game that was never supposed to have a story (created by the dev*)
Know what creates the story depth in these games? Roleplaying
You want dynamic story, join a group that roleplays. You'll get to see just how in depth a game like Minecraft can become with the minds of ten people interacting in an ever changing story crafted by themselves
Because again, there is no story to these games, that's not the point of them. It's up to the players to create their story
-
Whether it's supposed to have a story or not, the fact that it does not have one is what makes me (us) dislike it.
That's like telling someone who hates country music, "But it's SUPPOSED to sound like that. It's not MEANT to sound like rock."
Why is that an argument why they should value country music?
-
Klaus, that's not what my point was
My point was that developers deliberately chose not to put in a story in a sandbox game to allow players to create 100% their own story
Dragon's first post was about the games not being able to answer "What exactly" while I disagreed, the "What exactly" was player controlled
Then Dragon moved onto developers being lazy for choosing this route and preferring to have a more confined, nonlinear and developer created story. This is where I interjected about looking for story in a genre that isn't supposed to have one created for you, but created by you yourself
Course, now in response to you klaus, the games don't lack a story, they just lack a developer created one
That's my point
-
Tooling around is fun and all but...
Tell me a story, spin me a yarn, immerse me in a epic, I want to breathe in a universe of tales like a heady wine.
The being, I assume, the reason you (and me) are in on this community :P
I feel the same way; being able to "do anything" gets old if there's not a really exciting reason to be doing it. Some games are better at it than others; Elder Scrolls has a big open world but clear stories and adventures within said world, so you're not left with a pure blank slate.
@Dragon: IKR? That's part of the reason I play mainly retro games (KOTOR, oldschool Ace Combat, C&C Tiberium* and such)
*EDIT: With the exception of the last one, which was made mainly for multiplayer and had one of the worst single-player campaigns I've ever seen.
-
Star Citizen is going to have a single-player campaign (Squadron 42) so it wont be a purely open world game.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
-
I feel the same way; being able to "do anything" gets old if there's not a really exciting reason to be doing it. Some games are better at it than others; Elder Scrolls has a big open world but clear stories and adventures within said world, so you're not left with a pure blank slate.
There we go, I agree completely. I found that the best stories I've created (in my head) were the ones taking place in a wide open world that had actual things to see and do in it. A massive world is great, but it needs interesting things to do and see in it. A billion worlds to explore are boring if they're all just variations of the same few samples.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Maybe, but his characters were more than enough to make up for it. Say what you will about the plot itself, but I loved the characters in WC3. Also, IMO, WC4 did have a great story (it's often overlooked, because WC3 is the most famous game in the series). Even if Star Citizen's story won't be much to speak of, I'm pretty sure that the characters will be good.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Spirit's death haiku demands vengeance for this statement.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Each to his own I suppose. The story is the only thing that holds my interest in these games, as I would use the word mediocre for the gameplay. With the exception of Prophecy which is my favourite because the gameplay is vastly superior to the other games imo and genuinely fun to play, and I value gameplay above everything else. I've actually been thinking of playing some Prophecy recently. The other games, I don't own them, except WC4. But I do enjoy seeing the story stuff on Youtube. WC4, the story was the only thing dragging me through it, same for WC3 when I rented it. The gameplay doesn't SUCK, and has a rare few moments, but it's just so inferior to so many other games of the genre. I found the stories to be immersive. Sucked me into the World and the characters and made me care.
I suppose I'm curious why you think not even one of the games' stories gets above mediocre. I'm not going to try and make you change your opinion on subjective material, I'm just curious.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
Hey now. Let's not make this hostile. Like I said:
I suppose I'm curious why you think not even one of the games' stories gets above mediocre. I'm not going to try and make you change your opinion on subjective material, I'm just curious.
I did think it was a bit tactless to dismiss the widely acknowledged strongest part of the games as universally no better than mediocre, but I am curious as to why he thinks that and at the end of the day it's just one man's opinion and it's all subjective. We don't need to go attacking his tastes on subjective material to discuss this, do we?
-
The gameplay doesn't SUCK, and has a rare few moments, but it's just so inferior to so many other games of the genre.
You probably have time to thank for that. :) Prophecy plays best because it's newest, and even this one is fairly primitive. WC3 can seem antiquated both in graphics and in gameplay (WC4 improved on it, but only slightly) and earlier games are even worse in that regard. They can be fun, but if you don't like old games, they're very hard to get used to.
As for stories, once can get a poor impression of Chris Roberts' writing from the most well known Wing Commander, which is the 3rd game. Taken at the face value, it's a rather generic WWII pacific theater movie story. His greats are WC2 and WC4 (and Freelancer, but it has a large part of the story missing). Anyone who calls WC4's story "medicore" did not pay enough attention to it (it's at least as deep as Freespace's, maybe more so, though political, not spiritual). :) But what Roberts does best is the characters. In WC3's case, the characters are, at times, more interesting than what happens to them. :) They're what makes the games unforgettable and very immersive, despite their age. It's especially great if one was following them from the first game (or at least from WC2). Another oft-overlooked quality of WC3 and 4 is great acting in FMVs, something that the modern games don't even aspire to have.
-
You probably have time to thank for that. :) Prophecy plays best because it's newest, and even this one is fairly primitive. WC3 can seem antiquated both in graphics and in gameplay (WC4 improved on it, but only slightly) and earlier games are even worse in that regard. They can be fun, but if you don't like old games, they're very hard to get used to.
Yeah, that's a good point. Especially for WC1, which from what I understand was the total package when it came out. And WC3 is older than I thought as well, I was comparing it to games from like 3 years later. I do like a lot of old games, but Wing Commander 3 and 4 despite being my favourite genre I just struggle to get enjoyment out of playing them. WC1+2, never played, but just looking at them I think I'd be tearing my hair out trying to play them. If anything could be good for being remade, I think WCs 1-4 would be a great place to go. Remaster the FMV for 3 and 4, and remake and rebalance the levels into much larger scale battles on a modern engine. 1+2 for the story is more tricky, redoing that could wreck it and make it feel "not right". Perhaps don't touch it, but get some strong voice actors in, with an option of no voices available if that doesn't feel right to people. They could also use the same balance from the games to create the same levels on the modern engine so you could play the classic levels upgraded and the new levels with big battles.
But what Roberts does best is the characters. In WC3's case, the characters are, at times, more interesting than what happens to them. :) They're what makes the games unforgettable and very immersive, despite their age. It's especially great if one was following them from the first game (or at least from WC2). Another oft-overlooked quality of WC3 and 4 is great acting in FMVs, something that the modern games don't even aspire to have.
This. For me the game World and characters are well built and suck you in.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
freespace 2
-
Well, it's got a deep story, but not much else. FS2 is kind of an inverse of WC3. It has a fairly complex story, but almost no characters. Also, it uses a very "detached" theme, which further distances the player from the world (FS1 was better about it than 2). It's not a bad story, but I found it very non-immersive. It's an example of an "art-y" story that might be deep, but is difficult to enjoy and might very easily fall flat on people who don't specifically prefer that. There's hardly a "normal human" or any sort in the game, which is IMO its biggest weakness. With nobody to relate to, it's simply not convincing, especially when you're not on the lookout for deep metaphors. It's a good story, but poorly told (which is why I never really was a fan of FS, but love BP and derivatives). Wing Commander 3, on the other hand, tells a medicore story in such a way that you don't care that it's medicore.
Xenosaga is an example of a great story told well (at least, watching the cutscenes compilation gives that impression, I know nothing of the actual gameplay. :) Though seeing as it has a reputation of being a movie with gameplay breaks, it might not be that much of a problem). It's incredibly deep (more so than FS2, with even more mysticism), gets downright bizzare at times, but it also sports a memorable cast of characters that makes you really care for it. IMO, storytelling is at least as important as the story itself. There are things about which you can read an entire TVTropes page about, with supplements, know about every twist, but still enjoy reading/watching. Those are the real greats.
-
Xenosaga is an example of a great story told well (at least, watching the cutscenes compilation gives that impression, I know nothing of the actual gameplay. :) Though seeing as it has a reputation of being a movie with gameplay breaks, it might not be that much of a problem). It's incredibly deep (more so than FS2, with even more mysticism), gets downright bizzare at times, but it also sports a memorable cast of characters that makes you really care for it. IMO, storytelling is at least as important as the story itself. There are things about which you can read an entire TVTropes page about, with supplements, know about every twist, but still enjoy reading/watching. Those are the real greats.
It really isn't though. After I finally finished playing through part one of Xenosaga, I felt super indifferent about most of the characters and the cinematics have this wierd disconnect with the gameplay (kind of in the way of 'why didn't they use phoenix down on aerith?' sorta of deal). If they can teleport in these cool mechs at any point in a battle, why don't they use them to escape situation A? Or defeat the bad guy in situation B easily with it? Why are these mechs never adressed in any of the cinematic bits and feel so incredibly tagged on?
It spends a lot of time talking about politics and stuff that doesn't directly involve the characters and isn't terrible interesting or relevant for the player to know. Granted, playing the game with english dubs may have dragged the experience down a bit for me (the voices are... passable but not great) but I somehow doubt I would have been a lot more involved had I undubbed the thing.
It's not that the presentation is bad, it just that for me, Xenosaga really failed to get me involved. A lot of the time, the story felt like it lacked direction, the characters rarely have agency in any of the things that are happening, they just... sort of happen to do things just because they happen to be there. When I try to think back about it, a lot of it feels like a blur to me, I don't remember who the bad guys were, and I just remember the final boss being... just a random gnosis monster that just sort of came out of nowhere.
Needless to say, I haven't started playing part 2 yet...
Freespace 2 got the player immersed in a very different kind of way, by making you, Alpha 1. Freespace certainly didn't have much in the way of characters, it's definitely not a very character driven story, and I don't think the game would have been much better if it would have tried to go that route.
Either way I don't think any of these story telling methods are wrong in any way. Just different, and will appeal to different people in different ways.
I just don't feel Xenosaga is a very good example for 'deep character driven' game stories, cause to me it was mostly just a disjointed japanese story telling mess, but I agree with your points on wingcommander
-
I can tell you that VA plays a surprisingly large role. The first time I warmed up somewhat to FS2 main campaign was when, due to fiddling with various settings, it reset to the original English. Previously, I played the atrocious Polish dub, which messed up dialogue and generally sounded derpy. Good presentation is quite important to immersion, if the characters don't sound like people, it's harder to think of them as people. "Good speed" anyone? (that line, a very emotional part in the original version, was delivered in a flat voice and mangled into nonsense. The rest of the dub wasn't much better). For anything that wasn't originally in English, subtitles are the best option (Metro 2033 and Last Light are much better with Russian voices, as well. All parts of The Witcher are likewise best played in the original Polish).
Also, from what you're saying, Xenosaga actually gains when the "gameplay breaks" (and the gameplay itself) are removed and the whole thing watched as a series of cutscenes. Have you seen the anime made off the first episode, BTW? It changes things a bit, but also clears it up somewhat. It's still somewhat politics and worldbuilding heavy, but I suppose this comes down to personal preference (the setting is interesting IMO, so I didn't mind those parts). As far as cutscenes go, it's a great story and it's presented well, but from what I've heard of gameplay, they should've just made the whole thing an anime from the start.
-
I watched the anime way before playing the game, that was a lot of years ago so I don't remember too much of it.
You might be right about the gameplay breaking up the flow of the story, dragging it down. It's definitely harder to get involved in a story line when it is cut up by a few hours worth of 'grinding' through encounters. Especially since the story is 90% told through cinematics, and hardly through the gameplay parts.
I guess it's kind of akin to watching a show 3 episodes a day, or once every week.
-
Problem with story-based games is that they offer X number of hours of gameplay and then it's done. Whereas the open ended games potentially offer hours and hours of gameplay. More and more, developers want you to play their game and only their game for years and years. this is particularly true of games with microtransactions that keep you both playing and paying. Devs probably want one hit game that gives them a constantl cash flow over time.
But I'm in the crowd where I'd rather just play a game from start to finish and be done with it. Cross it off the list. I've started and finished two such games this week already (Tiny and Big, Grampa's Leftovers and Spec Ops the Line), currently playing through Halfway. Only open-ended game I've really stuck with is Minecraft.
-
I end up putting more time into story games than sandboxes anyway. I replay good story games a LOT. Once I get bored of mucking about in a sandbox game, there's literally NO draw any more and I won't come back. Exploration by itself is only fun once.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
Just for space sims, Freespace2, which has actual literary value, a claim no CR game can make.
As for others, Planescape: Torment and Mask of the Betrayer have what I think are some of if not the finest stories to ever come out of video gaming.
-
No matter how huge your open world is, there's no way people will sink the same amount of hours they sink into competitive multiplayer games. Playing Skyrim for 120 hours is considered a lot and you've pretty much done everything you can in the game. Playing, say, CSGO for 120 hours means you're still a bit of a noob.
Open worlds are nice, but I'd rather have a structured game with a good story, pacing, and difficulty curve than a quicksand box where you can "GO ANYWHERE" but everywhere ends up feeling the same.
-
Playing Skyrim for 120 hours is considered a lot and you've pretty much done everything you can in the game.
/me glances at Steam's recorded playtime for Skyrim: 657 hours
Yeah, 120 hours isn't really considered "a lot" for any BethSoft RPG.
-
Well, it's still less than what'd you need to reach the top rating in any competitive multiplayer game, which is when I'd consider that game "beat". Also, according to http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9859 it takes ~230 hours to 100% the game.
Sure you can muck about for hundreds more hours, especially when you add in mods but the same is true for any multiplayer game, they can be played forever.
-
Just for space sims, Freespace2, which has actual literary value, a claim no CR game can make.
What do you mean by "literary value"? If you mean "fodder for bizzare religious interpretations by English majors", then you're right, FS2 has plenty of that, while Chris Roberts' games are more down to earth. However, WC4 is one of the best stories I've seen that deals with the aftermatch of a large-scale war, and not from the perspective of its victims, but from the perspective of commanders and leaders who fought it. You won't find many Jesuses in purgatory there, but it does make its point, and it makes it well. Even though its not as complex as FS2, complexity doesn't equal quality. Chris Roberts' stories are not much of an interpretation material (though I'm sure that a dedicated enough interpreter would find a way), but they're enjoyable and don't try to mess with your head too much, which is what I prefer. Also, very importantly, he's really great at telling his stories.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
Just for space sims, Freespace2, which has actual literary value, a claim no CR game can make.
As for others, Planescape: Torment and Mask of the Betrayer have what I think are some of if not the finest stories to ever come out of video gaming.
And I would disagree.
MoTB was so forgettable for me, that I can't even recall the details anymore.
-
Aesaar, I don't know if you just expect us to mentally add an "imo" on the end of all your posts. After all, this is subjective material and maybe you're expecting that of us and I don't suppose that's an unreasonable expectation. But it kind of looks like you're talking as if you're some sort of authority on the subject and there's right and wrong and absolutes when it's all subjective and it's all opinions.
Anyway, I too am curious what is meant by "literary value". Such an ambiguous term. If literary value is something that only the best things would merit, okay, I can roll with that. But if it's your way of saying they're all complete garbage, then no. Wing Commander is a well regarded set of games, with the story component generally the highest regarded aspect of those games, so it does have value. It means a lot to a lot of people. Me, I simply liked it, but there are plenty who love the Wing Commander universe and have made lasting fond memories with the game through that.
-
Everything in life is down to personal taste. Remember that episode of the Twilight zone?
-
Playing Skyrim for 120 hours is considered a lot and you've pretty much done everything you can in the game.
/me glances at Steam's recorded playtime for Skyrim: 657 hours
Yeah, 120 hours isn't really considered "a lot" for any BethSoft RPG.
You are small time, sir.
I have a friend with over 2000 hours of skyrim playtime :p
Just for space sims, Freespace2, which has actual literary value, a claim no CR game can make.
As for others, Planescape: Torment and Mask of the Betrayer have what I think are some of if not the finest stories to ever come out of video gaming.
'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.
Planescape torment, I bought it on gog last year, after seeing so many people mention what a great game it's supposed to be and it being on the same engine as two of my favorite other games (BG&IWD). I could not get into it at all, probably didn't played more than 2 hours (left the morgue, spend some time in the town outside) before I left it be. The combat mechanics are ****awful and the whole atmosphere was nothing but grim despair and brown grey surroundings. I didn't liked it.
Subjective opinions, ho!
-
Playing Skyrim for 120 hours is considered a lot and you've pretty much done everything you can in the game.
/me glances at Steam's recorded playtime for Skyrim: 657 hours
Yeah, 120 hours isn't really considered "a lot" for any BethSoft RPG.
You are small time, sir.
I have a friend with over 2000 hours of skyrim playtime :p
Yes, that was the point... :/
-
'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
Complexity is something that characterizes many great works of literature. But it's not a requirement for greatness. One can make a simple story that nonetheless touches very fundamental philosophical questions (though it requires incredible skill. Stanislaw Lem pulled it off beautifully in a number of his works). One can also pile up religious metaphors, obscure references and foreign words, hoping to be mistaken for something deeply philosophical. The rest is then done by interpreters of various sorts. When you analyze something for long enough, it's almost certain that you'll end up with meanings the author never intended. This is especially high for works with high literary value, as defined above. :) As such, I tend to treat "literature scientists" and their ilk with suspicion.
I think that a great story is one in which you can find hidden meanings, but don't have to. One that seamlessly combines deep philosophy with good pacing, interesting characters and enjoyable setting. Not every widely-accepted classic is a great story (though many of them are), despite being praised by high school teachers (and those who compose "required reading" lists).
-
'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
Oh, is this for things that are open to interpretation then? Like for Freespace you could ask questions about the motives of the Shivans and the motives of Bosch, which are unclear, the kinds of things that produce large threads here vs if you asked questions about the motivations of the Kilrathi or Admiral Tolwyn, the story tells you everything you need to know.
-
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
No, **** it. I don't have the words to explain how mind-bogglingly stupid this statement is. I'm not going to bother. Not my job to explain what good writing is to someone who thinks looking at more than the words on the page is "misinterpreting a work". If the extent of your attempts at analysing fiction is high school lit course, then I really shouldn't be surprised.
Attempting to discuss this topic with you is like discussing evolution with a creationist. I'm out. Forget I said anything.
-
Well isn't that lovely. Just when I was thinking "Oh, Aesaar did pick something you can weigh and measure then."
But he can't actually be bothered to explain why or what he means. He just says WC = bad, and expects us all to believe it because he says it is so. Something is stupid because he says so but can't be bothered to actually explain why but can be bothered to throw insults around.
-
I expect you to do nothing. No, I don't expect you to think WC3 is bad because I say so. I just know that Dragon will never agree with my reasons for why because anyone who thinks something as ****ing stupid as this:
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
isn't going to be convinced.
I don't know if it's willful idiocy or not. Quite honestly, I don't care. I know when an argument is a waste of my time.
You can think whatever you like. If you feel like claiming victory, fine, go ahead. You win. I crown you king of the ****pile.
Planescape torment, I bought it on gog last year, after seeing so many people mention what a great game it's supposed to be and it being on the same engine as two of my favorite other games (BG&IWD). I could not get into it at all, probably didn't played more than 2 hours (left the morgue, spend some time in the town outside) before I left it be. The combat mechanics are ****awful and the whole atmosphere was nothing but grim despair and brown grey surroundings. I didn't liked it.
Subjective opinions, ho!
I had a similar problem the first time I played. It's a really slow start, and the "wtf do I do now" feeling is really strong at first. That the combat is terrible really doesn't help. Still, I encourage you to give it another go. Find Pharod, at least. There's a reason the game has the reputation it does.
-
FIY, I was making a joke about how literature interpretations, especially with classical literature, tend to go so far beyond what was written that you start to wonder what did they need the book for. From the sound of it, you may be one of those guilty of this sort of interpretations. :) You can try to convince me there's merit in this sort of grasping at straws, but I've discussed it before with other people.
Not my job to explain what good writing is to someone who thinks looking at more than the words on the page is "misinterpreting a work".
You don't need to explain because I know very well what it is (or at least people who read my writing seem to think that. If you know Polish I can send over a sample). Good writing isn't merely about leaving half the things unsaid for the reader to figure out. Anyone could do that by setting out to write a trilogy and quitting after the second part. Reading between the lines is fine, but I often find it overdone. And not only on high school level (though my formal education in it stopped there, and I'm glad about that), I've interacted with actual literature majors as well. Academic analysis of literature is grossly overrated, and often prone to finding meanings that are not there (at least not according to the author). There's an anecdote about Asimov attending a lecture about one of his own books and, when it ended, telling the woman who did the lecture that it was completely wrong. Her response? "Do you think that you know what it's about just because you wrote it?". Dunno if it's true or not, but the attitude certainly is.
Some measure of reading between the lines is fine, but it's important not to go overboard with it. A well written story is not one you need to read with an encyclopedia and the author's biography on your hand. True greats can actually be enjoyed either way. Good writing is hard to describe precisely (we wouldn't have bad writers if it was possible to encompass in a forum post :) ), but it certainly does not require piling up metaphors. One can pull off a heavily metaphorical story with multiple interpretations, but it's important to keep it readable.
-
dragon ur a stupid asshole, stop posting
e: poland is an irrelevant country in terms of sheer political power and other such things that defines a land's importance in this day and age
e2: wing commander is terrible, the characters are all one dimensional, the mission structure is boring and not innovative, and the overall plot is a more boring WW2 in space
e3: also the ship designs suck
e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.
-
I expect you to do nothing. No, I don't expect you to think WC3 is bad because I say so. I just know that Dragon will never agree with my reasons for why because anyone who thinks something as ****ing stupid as this: It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
isn't going to be convinced.
I don't know if it's willful idiocy or not. Quite honestly, I don't care. I know when an argument is a waste of my time.
You can think whatever you like. If you feel like claiming victory, fine, go ahead. You win. I crown you king of the ****pile.
Well, it looks like there's been some sort of misunderstanding here with Dragon.
I don't want victory. I just wish we all could get along better and be nice to each other. I don't understand where your anger comes from in the first place over something like this.
And there's another post and Hades wtf...
-
You might've made a misunderstanding about my joke, but I think that the real problem is that I'm questioning the very point having such course as literature at universities. :) It'd undoubtedly tick off anyone who did such a course and now produces academic papers on various works of literature, because I'm effectively be calling what he's doing useless. Well, I kind of am. :) It's not the most popular stance, but I've seen enough of literary interpretations to hold it pretty firmly. While reading is certainly not simple, IMO it isn't a skill that need a whole institute devoted to it. I also see it as a somewhat of a personal thing (though this is mostly important with poems rather than prose).
As for Hades, don't mind him. He only has one good point (I probably should be writing my stories in English, so I could sell them for money, as opposed to Polish Zlotys), and it's the only least relevant to the discussion. Funny thing that the only thing I can agree with him on is a poorly disguised ad hominem, but it really is that kind of country. :)
-
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
This is unironically the greatest thing you've ever posted.
-
Yes, that was the point... :/
I...I know that was the point... I was trying to make a joke.
S-sorry.
-
e3: also the ship designs suck
e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.
The words of a man who did not play the first two games trying to sound intelligent on a topic he does not know much about.
Seriously though I have no idea how you can say this about the non-3D games, particularly in light of some of the Kilrathi designs like the Jrathek, Krant, and Jalethi.
-
The words of a man trying to sound intelligent.
You give Hades too much credit :p
-
e3: also the ship designs suck
e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.
The words of a man who did not play the first two games trying to sound intelligent on a topic he does not know much about.
Seriously though I have no idea how you can say this about the non-3D games, particularly in light of some of the Kilrathi designs like the Jrathek, Krant, and Jalethi.
i think maybe because we've been explicitly discussing wc3 and onwards he was specifically talking about them?
-
Aesaar didn't mention anything like that in his post that started this tangent and I rebuked that post with a mention of an event that takes place in WC2 at the very start of this conversation, well before anyone brought up 3 or 4 by name. Dragon explicitly discussed 3 as the least-inspired story while suggesting all the others as better.
The only person who's been explicitly limiting themselves to 3 and 4 in terms of this conversation seems to have been Lorric, apparently because he has no experience with the others. Hades and Aesaar both made blanket statements regarding "Chris Roberts games" and "Wing Commander games" without specifying which ones, therefore probably meaning all of them.
I don't think your assertion of limited scope holds up, Phantom. Perhaps because Hades worded his reply very poorly, but still.
-
There's a concept called "The death of the author" based on a French essay from the 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor
The basic idea is that the author of a work can't declare what it's about, that job falls on it's readers. There's no "right" way to interpret a work of art as every reader's personal interpretation is what's best for that specific reader. Therefore there's no way to "misinterpret" a work, as there's no "right" interpretation to deviate from.
Literary value is not just determined from on-high by literature majors and people who analyse art for a living, but there has to be something to actually interpret in order for fan theories to exist. I think pretty much everyone who played them can clearly see that there's really not much to interpret in Wing Commander games.
If your work is straightforward and only meant for enjoyment then it's not really art. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but those kinds of works really have no literary merit and no amount of snarking about literature majors and what you think of their jobs will change that. Enjoyment and literary value are not mutually exclusive though, it's not like you either have to be a dumb summer blockbuster or a super vague and serious work of art no normal human can actually sit through(like 2001:A space odyssey).
-
Calm down people.
-
'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.
It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. :) Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.
"Literally value" has little real value for me.
I understand why some like it that much.
It gives ones ability to project himself into the work.
Also it gives literary majors material, but hey, you can really analyze everything if you really want to.
I read a long eassay once on why Super Mario has a anti-capitalist message...
When you analyze something for long enough, it's almost certain that you'll end up with meanings the author never intended.
Indeed.
I think that a great story is one in which you can find hidden meanings, but don't have to.
I personally don't care about hidden meanings.
As long as the story impacts me on a emotional level or entertains me, I'll consider it better than all the literally acclaimed titles in the world
-
Calm down people.
Totes.
-
This is the sort of thread where I'd be willing to pay cash money for Battman to come in for a bit and lay into things. Not that I'd necessarily agree with all of his points, but it'd be damn fine reading regardless.
-
I'd pay double to prevent that.
-
In the spirit of the first few posts, are there any upcoming space games with some semblance of story other than the X game and star citizen then?
KSP career mode falls into where?
-
Enemy Starfighter! (http://enemystarfighter.com/)
-
Speaking of Star Citizen, are those ships going to remain as DLC after the game's launch? 265 dollars for a ship?? I would expect that a game which offers in-game content as purchasable items would have a modified progression curve (that is, slower)which would encourage its players to take the easy way and simply buy the ship. Does not sound appealing to me.
On topic don't know of any story-based games on the horizon. I backed one a while ago, Starlight Inception, but apparently it sucks balls so- haven't played it haha. They should just make another Xwing game, even if it were set during the prequel trilogy I'd buy it. Maybe EA has something in the works (as they have all the star wars licenses).
-
Enemy Starfighter! (http://enemystarfighter.com/)
That looks like Homeworld 2.
-
Yeah but Chris Roberts has never managed to make a story that wasn't mediocre, so I can't say I'm expecting much out of it.
Care to post examples of great stories?
Wanna bet a lot of people will disagree they are great?
freespace 2
Freespace indeed had an interesting story.... but if we talk about "characters" "character development" and "character interaction" and compare that to CRs masterpiece Wing Commander 4? I mean ... Freespace had some "characters" alright , even interesting ones in the case of Bosch (and who else? yeah ... ) , but ... know what I mean? ;-) lol.
Part of Freespace appeal is that it's presentation is so bleak and sterile, true, but a large part of Wing Commander's appeal is that it is the exact opposite and shines in areas that are sorely lacking to nonexistent in Freespace (i.e. characters and their interaction).
Or in other words .... The Wing Commander's series strongest points are Freespaces weakest points and vice versa: Just like Wing Commanders mission design and gameplay doesn t hold a candle against Freespace, Freespace doesn't have a chance against the characterisation and sheer immersion of the WC series and ... in the case of WC4 the realisation that you are in the middle of the next best thing to a playable Science Fiction blockbuster movie where you can actually fly the spaceships.
I wouldn't really compare either game in the sense of "better or worse" as each games strong points lay in such vastly diferent areas where the other is rather weak in comparison.
Speaking of Star Citizen, are those ships going to remain as DLC after the game's launch? 265 dollars for a ship?? I would expect that a game which offers in-game content as purchasable items would have a modified progression curve (that is, slower)which would encourage its players to take the easy way and simply buy the ship. Does not sound appealing to me.
On topic don't know of any story-based games on the horizon. I backed one a while ago, Starlight Inception, but apparently it sucks balls so- haven't played it haha. They should just make another Xwing game, even if it were set during the prequel trilogy I'd buy it. Maybe EA has something in the works (as they have all the star wars licenses).
Star Citizen is 100% crowdfunded and CR has spoken out against grindy gameplay and pay to win multiple times.
So if there is a game to have a chance to not succump to the usual greedfueled pay to win schemes that rule the mass market industry then it is this one.
That said, we'll see how it all turns out when this thing releases :P
-
Wing Commander is kitch, FreeSpace is avant garde. The villains in Wing Commander are allegories for historical events. The villains in FreeSpace are an intrusion of the Lacanian real into the human symbolic order.
Wing Commander is cozy and 'immersive', an escapist fantasy into a world of heroism, war, and friendship. It coddles the player with the appealing notion that they have stepped into another world full of people and objects. It reassures and endears.
FreeSpace is uncomfortable and frightening. It challenges the player to confront the alien indifference of the universe and to recognize the hubris of the human narrative. It is exactly functional and transcends the idea that immersion for its own sake is necessary.
-
This is why Wing Commander inspires more Wing Commander and FreeSpace can inspire thought.
-
Wing Commander is kitch, FreeSpace is avant garde. The villains in Wing Commander are allegories for historical events. The villains in FreeSpace are an intrusion of the Lacanian real into the human symbolic order.
Wing Commander is cozy and 'immersive', an escapist fantasy into a world of heroism, war, and friendship. It coddles the player with the appealing notion that they have stepped into another world full of people and objects. It reassures and endears.
FreeSpace is uncomfortable and frightening. It challenges the player to confront the alien indifference of the universe and to recognize the hubris of the human narrative. It is exactly functional and transcends the idea that immersion for its own sake is necessary.
oh I fully agree with you in regards of the Freespace story being in a leage of it's own, either accidentially or on purpose. (Sometimes I wonder if an actual Freespace 3 would have ruined it all with an utter cliche ending ;-) )
However ... one can't help but wonder how Freespace 2 would have turned out with the same story and message, but with much more attention to characters, character interaction and development coupled with better presentation ...
... sorta like Blue Planet maybe :P
In any case... Wing Commander imho does show what the medium can aspire to as far as "presentation" goes ... content, not so much, yeah. But nevertheless the production values and presentation does imho make it a rather huge milestone for the medium of computer games, especially considering how fra***** early on it was released.
It's one of the few games that could in some sense be considered as a "true" interactive movie experience. How much that is worth or not can be discussed of course, but I would argue that showing what is possible at such an early date deserves recognition on it's own, even when the actual story was utter cliche ;-)