noname2200 said:
I'm increasingly starting to think that the reason why I'm increasingly in favor of minimal, or no, story in games is that the writing has almost always been terrible in videogames, but in previous generations technical limitations have prevented us from getting the full brunt of the creators' "artistic vision." An SNES JRPG, for instance, couldn't afford the writers the ability to do a prolonged dramatic scene, because all but the most tolerant players would get incredibly bored within seconds: the hero despairing at the death of his mentor would be expressed exclusively through written, skippable dialogue, and the visuals would consist of a sprite repeating three frames of animation. Now that same scene would be told through a lengthy CGI cutscene, with voice acting, long camera shots, close ups, etc. The writers assume that because they can now throw more stuff at the player, the player will tolerate longer scenes, and to a degree they are correct. But because they last so much longer now, those scenes need to be much better than in previous generations, and that is NOT what has happened. I don't believe that cinematic scenes in games are bad per se, but I firmly believe that game creators are far too inept to take advantage of those scenes; I am literally embarrased to show many videogame scenes to other people because they're just so badly made.
tl;dr version: Yup. |
I realise that I'm now leaving the topic completely, but I figure that's when the most interesting discussions usually start.
I disagree with you on your views on story in video games. You seem to be taking the same stance as Nintendo generally has: A deep story has nothing to do in videogames. And you know what? Many of their games are lesser for it.
The Fire Emblem franchise is a good example of this. With the GBA entries, the story was mainly a way to let you play the game. The story was there to give you a reason to play the maps. With the SNES entries (which were prior to the GBA entries, but made by completely different people), there was a far larger focus on story. Both FE4 and FE5 had multiple plot twists, and the story played as large a part - if not a larger one - than the gameplay. I was deeply moved by Fire Emblem 4.
Now, if you look at the maps, both Fire Emblem 4 and Fire Emblem 5 were at times hurt from the story. To fit into the story, the maps sometimes ended up being a bit odd, and making you have to move your army from one place to another, which was rather dull. The story hurt the gameplay.
If you ask pretty much any person who has played both Fire Emblem 4 and Fire Emblem 7/8, he'll prefer Fire Emblem 4. Fire Emblem 4's gameplay isn't really better than Fire Emblem 7/8s - they both have advantages and disadvantages over each other - but the story makes the game a completely different experience.
Fire Emblem 4 is a masterpiece. Fire Emblem 8 is a game.
I'd say Nintendo made some of the same mistake with Twilight Princess. It's definitely the least story intense 3D console Zelda, and I think that hurt it. It's a good game, but the story part is essentially a non-fleshed out version of Ocarina of Time's story. As a result, many people wondered exactly why they were going through all of these temples in Twilight Princess, there really isn't much reason beyond "go there".
And that's part of what makes Ocarina of Time great. You have a reason to go to every temple. In fact, you always have at least two reasons to go to each temple. Both for the main quest, and for some separate reason, whether thats Saria, Ruto or the Gerudos. There's a reason for why you do everything.
I suppose that might have been what you meant. Ocarina of Time isn't a hugely story intense game, so you might just be interested in that level of story. However, I think Twilight Princess went below the amount of story a 3D Zelda should have. You don't really care about what happens to the people of Hyrule. In both Ocarina of Time and Okami, you do. Twilight Princess has better gameplay, better graphics and equally good music as the other two, but the lack of reason for doing what you do makes it an inferior game (while still being great).
If you extend the view to non-Nintendo games, I'd like to point out Bethesda. What makes Mass Effect a fantastic game? The fighting system is good, but it's not a horse's head ahead of other games. The difference is the story. Dragon Age is an even better example, but as I'm not sure if you've played these games, I won't bother expanding a lot on this.
I'd be as bold as to say that Nintendo makes the games with the best gameplay in the industry. I'd also be as bold as to say that they have the best music. And yet, their games aren't always the best games. I'd say the reason for that is Nintendo's view on story. They're limiting their games to being just games, and by doing that, they're crippling them.
