God of War director says Galaxy has ‘vapid story’

[DeguelloNWR]

Famine said:

DeguelloNWR said:

You, like Mr. Barlog are having the same misconception. You are simply looking at the beginning and end without see the MIDDLE.

Super Mario Bros: Bowser Kidnaps Princess Peach and takes her to his castle, through the various worlds of the mushroom kingdom, until he finally reaches Bowser's Castle, does battle, and is victorious.

Super Mario Galaxy: Bowser attacks a star festival, kidnaps Princess Peach by lifting her castle into OUTER SPACE and banishing Mario to a small planet. After restoring a ship's galactic traveling power, he attempts to rescue Princess Peach by going to the Center of the universe and tossing Bowser into the sun. He is victorious.

These are quite different, as anybody can clearly see. Simply because they have the same bread on one end and the other, doesn't mean the sandwich is the same. A grilled cheese sandwich is not a peanut butter sandwich. I am not in agreement with Mr. Barlog, as I see gameplay and story vitally connected. What the player does in the game is its story. The desperate attempts to make that jump, the frustration of repeated defeat at the hands of a boss. All you really need there is an interesting concept, like jumping between planets, and you're good to go.

Does it really bother you than it's the same person being rescued and the same villian fought? Would the game have been better if it were exactly the same, but those two names are different? Isn't that kind of shallow?

And my last point was not towards anything in your real life situations. You asked why was Mario doing what he's doing, and the answer is simple. Bowser kidnapped her, and he is thus motivated to rescue her. If that's not sufficient, maybe he could brood about it for an hour before he starts. I'd hope being kidnapped would be sufficient to receive help, and across the globe it is universally accepted to do so. But Revenge is not so universal, particularly for its basic selfish drive.

It's still the same hero, same damsel, same villain, same plot. SMG isn't the first one in the series to try something new by introducing new characters, it isn't the first one to offer new play mechanics, but it is the same as the previous when it comes to having the same hero, same damsel, and having to fight the same villain.

When it comes to the story, yeah, I find it jaded, but that's not what is bringing me back to play Mario, nor does the storytelling aspect alone of any game bring any player back, it's the gameplay.

It might be different sandwhiches, one consisting of spiced ham, the other honey glazed, and the other just plain ham, but the thing is the sandwhiches have a similarity, they all contain ham.

As for the gameplay being connected with story, that befalls almost every game: This happens in this scene, play through this area to get to the new scene, weather it be rolling something into a huge massive ball, ripping something's head off, shooting your way through denizens of the undead, leading your soldiers across a battlefield, etc.

Now if the story is something that made people truly stick with this game... fine; different people find delectation through various things. I on the other hand have witnessed this same story and same characters when my parents first bought me an NES back in the 80s, and it's now 2008. They could have made Wario and Bowser team-up against Mario; right there, that's already something new.

 So you do find issue with it simply being the same names?  That's pretty shallow, IMO.  However, I pose a question.  Which would be worse?  Fighting the same villian in a new way (like Bowser in SMB1, SM64, SM Galaxy) or fighting new villains the same way? (Like most Final Fantasies where the villains are different but you still simply choose "fight" out of a menu and hope you win)  And I daresay how is this better than God of War's (main topic comes flying back in), with such unheard of enemies as Ares, the Hydra, Medusa, et al?  The nomenclature changed so desired in Mario is prevalent in God of War, where they simply rip out Hercules and insert Kratos.  It's different now, right?

Are you missing my points on purpose?  If you think SMB1 and Super Mario Galaxy are the same type of "sandwich," you're mad.  Do you not see the PLANETS Mario is jumping between?  Are you sure you see no difference?  Is concept separate from plot?  The only time when video game plots succeed movie or book plots is when the interactivity melds with the gameplay, such as the visceral feeling of flying through the galaxy and the elements of wonder therein.  When the game keeps the plot and game separate, through cutscenes and points where the player is removed from the equations, the story feels more dictated than experienced.  In that case, just go see Die Hard.

Also, no. The experiential story does not befall every game.  People in awe of Super Mario Galaxy due to the whole experience of playing the game telling their friends and colleagues of the experience is not the same as "did you see that one cutscene yet?" or "remember when that guy said...?"  In that instance the player is merely repeating who someone else said.  But when you describe the feeling of Playing Mario Galaxy, few words can suffice, and each new attempt to describe it is a story in itself, as well as the personal experience of just playing it for fun.  To have to be "motivated" for any other reason than that to play the game is, well, kinda sad for a media built upon fun.

And it reverts back to personal opinion, which is personal yes, but subject to judgement and evaluation of others when revealed.  Some agree with Mr. Barlog, even to go so far as to say he is flatly "right."  However more people and more talented designers and developers than Mr. Barlog have sung Mario's praises, even some for its storyline removed from the gameplay as a throwback to simpler times in gaming, before all games had to seem deep with angsty heroes and political or social commentary.  Others note the simplicity of the plot but extoll it's connection to the gameplay as brilliant concept.  Is it possible that he's the odd man out, the one who doesn't understand?  I think so.

He's a relative industry newbie taking on one of the icons.  One of the timeless figures (that being Mario.)  If he has a grievance, it had best be undisputed and highly supported.  And as squarely evidenced and even freely admitted by Mr. Barlog himself, he is almost alone in his assertion.  He might be able to learn how a little bit less complex story and a little more integration of it with the gameplay could make for games that could one day rival those that he criticizes.  Or he can pout about how everybody loves Mario and everybody seems to have forgotten God of War.  His choice.