impertinence said:
I just love it when people act as if there are not standards to jude by because tastes are different. In the real world, there are criteria for story telling, there are criteria for a game. David Cage doesn't like that people actually try to use words within their agreed meaning, but that doesn't make him right. The criteria for telling good stories are in direct conflict with the criteria for making a game. That is why the merger of story telling and video games will forever be held back as it needs to compromise either game play or story or in the case of Beyond : Two Souls and similar games: both. This is not my opinion, it's a basic fact and failure to akcnowledge that fact comes from failure to understand exactly what constitutes a game and a story (or a good story I should say). Again, there is nothing wrong with enjoying what I call interactive stories. If that floats your boat, excellent! Enjoy that experience all day long. If you like it better than movies, HURRAH! I am exhalted on your behalf. That doesn't change the basic fact that the story by necessity will have to be compromised from a pure story telling point of view. And that is my beef with the BS from the OP: Adding interactivity to a story does not improve on the story telling, it detracts from it by nature. |
All I'm refusing to acknowledge is that YOUR standard is THE standard we all must follow. Because you are talking about something that is totally subjective. Tell me exactly where 'Beyond: Two Souls' objectively fails. Now, I'm not about to say that it's perfect, and I enjoy lots of imperfect stories, but you're discarding an entire medium of storytelling. That is just ridiculous. I don't see as how you've made your case that interactivity and a story conflict with each other, you've merely stated that it is so.
