CGI-Quality said:
*shrunk your post - way too long for quoting* I wasn't upset at all - just seemed like you were doing what you've done before. You should know by now that I call you out on that every time. I also wasn't the only one who thought you were being serious, either. But then, using terms like "wannabe filmaker" while claiming to be sarcastic still makes me think, based on how defensive you got, that I was spot on initially. :P Anyway, and more importantly, Story - I see you misunderstood what I was saying about storydriven games vs whatever else is offered in the industry. For example, I didn't mention Mario and GT in regards to a story, I said if they have a place here, then so do storydriven games. Why - because they work. They're successful. You don't seem to be much into them, which is fine, but you speak like these are games that generally fail (or will make the market crash) and the industry just can't wait to see them cease. Not even close to the case. No link/source/opposing view is ctushing that theory, right now. The Last Of Us didn't just succeed because Naughty Dog's name was imprinted on it. If the story was bad, it wouldn't have been what it was - (most reviews give speeches about its story). There's a place here for the experiences. Many gamemakers are "competent" storytellers, or their games wouldn't be compared with Hollywood much of the time (and even if they weren't, these guys have the "necessary ability, knowledge, and skill" to tell great stories, obviously). I'm not saying you have to embrace them, but you may as well get used to them. Cage, Kojima, Naughty Dog, etc, etc and their types of games aren't going anywhere. And there are, and will be,m plenty of genres/sub genres that won't try to mimmick the ways of these people. |
Anything that is driven by a game will undermine the ability of players to act. If the one driving things (storytelling, etc...) is competent, it can work well. However, when it isn't, it is pretty bad actually. The thing is that ic an work well. But often times, it will miss the mark, and you get people very irate over things that don't involve actual gameplay. What happened with the likes of Mass Effect 3 is a prime example of this. People were irate because Bioware apparently dropped the ball with the ending.
As I said, the issues are there isn't enough people working in the industry to pull it off sufficiently, the medium is harder than any other medium to do stories competently in, and the costs to get it to a place to where it ends up being on par with movies for immersion causes it to cost like a movie. The problem here is the business model for games is not the same as movies. You can't expect them to put out games like Enslaved and sell them for $60 a pop, no matter how good the story and acting is, and expect the studio to not lose money. And you can't do this when you don't have box office to be able to offset costs. Heck, games don't even have the ability to get distribution through cable or TV either.
Look at where the videogame industry is, and why the are sucking up to Indies now. You have it being said the industry can only afford to do 10 AAA titles a year. And you are now seeing a push toward open world. Idea now is to create a platform to create content and let players end up exploring it and doing this, and sell them more and more content. This way, you can create a situation where players can put up with many NPCs getting arrows to the knee. I assure you, a movie with a lot of supporting cast talking about getting arrows to the knee would end up causing the movie to be panned.
