Cmon now given where we started from I think the stories today are top draw.
==============================================================
A plumber rescuing a princess from a large monkey on a flimsy building site.
An invasion force of aliens who convieniently line up in a square to be shot.
A yellow disc with a mouth who is locked in an eternal maze battle with four ghosts (backstory unknown)
| Random Canadian said: Am I the only person who liked MGS4 ? :( |
Everyone loved it when they first played it, and the majority still do. But once you've finished a game and taken a few months to think about it, it's almost never as good as when you first played it. You start to see the holes in the plot and the flaws in the gameplay.
It's still one of my favourite games this gen, but I don't regard it as highly as I once did.
(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective 
Reading the full article I liked a few other points he brought up as well.
From my point of view, this gen alone I bought MGS Twin Snakes on a whim since it was a rare game, the game was simply amazing, good story telling, awesome graphics, and aside from clunky controls at times good game play. I practically became a fanatic over night, and then went on a MGS buying spree and bought basically each game in the series, I played MGS2 till it pissed me off, read the rest of the story, went on to MGS PO, enjoyed that one a lot more like the first game. And just really disliked MGS4, the story was a lot of anti war babble, and things go WAY too over the top while still wanting you to take it seriously when it got to those dramatic moments...
He mentioned Kingdom Hearts II, I enjoyed the game, I love the series, but he has some good points, a bit of it is too reused, and relies too much on you knowing what happened in Chain of Memories and its basically a necessity unless you want to read the journal (which no one does or ever will)
He also tore into Heavy Rain a bit at the end, this I also agree with, a lot of the time the game tries to give you the "your characters can die at any moment" feel when it's really not that open ended, its fairly scripted and if you fail a scene it'll brush it off like its nothing "oh yeah you shot me but it just grazed me I'm fine". Not to mention to me the whole plot is a lot like a boring cop/mystery drama, it's okay for fans of that sort of thing, but its no Silence of the Lambs, it would be a B or C string plot for a movie, lower budget, etc.
One game I really must bring up when discussing stories is Mother 3, if you haven't played it, do so now. It really is up there with emotional writing that tugs at your heart and brings out emotion better than any other game I've played. Earthbound did this as well but with different emotions, both made me cry, and both brought me a lot of joy in the humor, but if you're wanting mature writing Mother 3 trumps the best of them.
MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"
Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000
Suikoden games had the best storylines IMHO.
Suikoden 2 and 3 were the best.
Owner of : PS1/PSOne , PS2 phat/slim , PS3 phat/slim , PS Eye+Move and PSP phat/slim/brite/go (Sony)
The Official PS Vita Thread! Get all your latest PS Vita news here! Come join us!
richardhutnik said:
What REALLY irritates me is that people expect game, which is an interactive form of entertainment, to morph itself into a device for telling stories (story being historically a passive medium for communicating with a listener, reader or viewer), and expecting it to be EASY. It isn't easy. Games aren't intended to be devices to tell stories,. Oh, they CAN be used like that, but the benchmark for a great game is NOT that it has a great story. The benchmark is how well it plays. A game scores points if it can tell a story. But, I will assure you the videogame industry is going to bankrupt itself if it feels it HAS to compete with Hollywood, TV and the book industry, to be a medium for telling the best stories. It will not only drive up its current costs, but throw into it the entire array of what is needed to make a movie work, and add that to it. Soon, the arms race to make storytelling the TOP element, will cause games to average a cost of $100+ million to make. Anyone here think the videogame industry will survive if perceived demands of what is needed to make a game that sells, drives the costs to $100+ million? The surest way is to cause the videogame industry to fold is to require it get into the movie making business, and have costs to match. But if you don't push for the top voice talent, director and so on, expect then the production value to be less. This being said, a reason why you get bad stories is that the talent isn't there to use the medium to actually TELL a story. People don't have the skills, so you get the likes of Kojima producing what FEELS like a blockbuster, but is a mess in regards to the actual story, with memorable points that don't fit togeter as a whole. |
Good points. I particularly agree that the issue is that:
one, videogames aren't necessarily the best medium for to convey a traditional narrative and explore characters - I think it may need to be accepted they will never equal say films or novels. In fact, while I love films I'm not sure films have even equalled the capabilities of novels, for example, so I don't know why people suddenly think games are suddenly going to be great at this
two, if you're a great writer why would you work in videogames? Why aren't you writing a novel, or a script? The answer is you are. Some games have had some very good writing, but for the most part it's fairly amatuerish, the work of to be honest mainly low level talent, because the best talaent is normally working in other mediums. Is David Cage the equal of a David Mamet, for example? I don't think so. Actually, I know he's not. On that note I will be interested to see how Crysis 2 turns out, as they've hired an actual writer of what appear to be fairly decent SF novels - and a fairly vocal writer at that!
On the topic of the article, I'd disagree about Half Life 2 particularly - as it features:
a) pretty good writing, particularly for Dr Breem and his broadcasts
b) a better approach for games - which is subtle, visual cues that you can either pick up or not as you wish - vs sub-cinema cut-scenes and C movie plot points
c) a deliberate lack of traditional narrative/character development (which games struggle at TBH) vs simply allowing you, a mute character, to observe everything you need to understand what's going on via interaction. HL2 recognizes, I believe, the limitations on developing characters in a videogame vs the reality its' you sitting on the couch experiencing the game through the eyes of an on-screen Avatar. The whole game is designed around knowing it's you sitting experiencing it, listening to Alex and others talk to you, noting the lowered water levels, seeing the police state operate around you, etc. and it knows that you (and Gordon) aren't going to develop as a character because that's not what the goal is nor even anything being attempted. Instead, you're going to experience an amazing adventure, in real time, played out right before you in a consistent and logical world
d) a non interrupted narrative (obviously not every game should be like this) where HL2 in a sense plays out in real time - i.e. you don't have a cutscene jumping from point A to point B : you're there, in the world, and you have to actually get yourself from point A to point B
I still find HL2 far more 'real' and immersive than any number of games since, and note that it actually manages, by keeping it simple and not trying to be anything other than a great game, to avoid plot holes, weak characters and all the usual cliches of a videogame story. I think the author of the article has missed the point of how HL2 is constructed and what it sets out to do - which is put you in an on-going situation but not to tell a traditional narrative with lots of dialogue and character development.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
I know what you're trying to do here in downplaying some of the best stories in gaming, but really I think this problem exists in almost all media.
Do the most recent blockbuster movies have great storylines? Avatar the movie that made the most movie of any film? I think it has some deeper social themes but really it's story is quite cookie cutter imo. Clash of the Titans? I think it can be credited with keeping the old Greek myths alive for younger people today, but I would say it's not exactly the best that stories can be. A Nightmare on Elm Street?
The best made for tv movies being made these days are probably the ones on the Syfy Channel, but most of at best are only B in story quality.
Novels are there any novels that are considered classics or best sellers today that aren't as controlled and linear or even more so than a game like FFXIII in their progression? Are books like The Stand or most fantasy epics where the very few characters you are introduced to in the first few pages and that wind up being the ones destined to save the world in the end of the book really more believable than what we see in most games?
I just don't think there are that many truely unique stories out there in any entertainment media and that most of the ones considered to be good due hold their own with the best in other media.
I think judging good storytelling is just a very subjective thing.
One thing I like about the way stories are told in the best rpg series like Final Fantasy and even in Metal Gear is that many times in movies I think they're too short to give you the emotional depth you can get from reading a novel and novels don't have all the bells and whistles and pretty characters you find in movies or rpgs, so games like rpgs walk a line between solving the problems of the brevity of movies while giving you something to enjoy looking at unlike books.
Its not that games generally have poor storylines its just that people have unrealistic expectations about what makes a good story. The fundamental purpose of a story is first to entertain. If a story fails to entertain then any merit it may have in terms of education, morality, intrigue or any other positive value you feel a good story must have is irrelevant as noone would care to engage with a story which fails in its fundamental purpose.
In storytelling, often the simpler a story can be made, the better. It has always been a coveted ability of the better artists to convey more with less. A great writer can sometimes describe in a sentence what an average writer might meander for a chapter to explain. Just because a story is simple in structure doesn't mean that great meaning or great artistry cannot be portrayed within. Often by boiling away the parts of the story which aren't requred the writer can focus on the areas of greatest import to the story. Many of the stories which have been lauded as great have relatively simple plots which outline their overall structure. This is not a hindrence but a strength that intellectuals often overlook in great stories.
Games are a medium unto themselves and should be judged as such. They are not movies and they aren't books. Whilst they share many of the characteristics of both they shouldn't be judged by the standards of either. Games are defined by interaction and any stories told are generally defined by such as well whereas books and movies are a passive and non-interactive medium. In almost all cases the player is a participant in the games story, even going as far as creating the story for himself with some games.
Tease.
| Mirson said: Storytelling is an art form in and of itself, just like painting or music. And of all the art forms that comprise video games, story is often at the low end on the totem of importance. This is perfectly acceptable to me-games are more often than not held up by mechanical and/or aesthetic components, leaving the story as icing on the cake. However, this does not mean that any game that even attempts to have a deep and/or dynamic story can automatically be heralded as storytelling mastery. To do so belittles the craft. You could have a fantastic cake that gets topped with shit, and while the cake itself might be a perfectly fine baked good, you still need to contend with the fact that there is shit on your cake. A game's story need not be an epic tale or some groundbreaking piece of fiction, although it certainly can be. The story simply needs to compliment the game's other components and bring a sense of coherence to help keep the player immersed. A sudden jolt of "WTF is going on?" can shatter a playing experience, whereas a good one can possibly overshadow the game's other flaws. So what makes a good game story? Well, obviously there's no concrete answer to that. What I can do however, is go through some games that I think did it right, and some that I think made it seem like they did it right when they actually screwed it up hardcore. BioShock's main story concerning the ramifications of a (theoretical) objectivist utopia is thought-provoking and haunting at the same time. The motivation and fallout of Andrew Ryan's vision are all around the player, and virtually everything revolves around dealing with his influence. Even the smaller subplots all revolve around Rapture's ideals in some way, showing how Ryan's larger plans and their ultimate failure impacted all of the normally faceless citizens. BioShock takes an idea, shows how it might have come to fruition, and then slams the player with the horrifying results. Getting thrown into a dystopia is a common occurrence in games, but fully understanding why it came about is not. BioShock manages to present us with something that could have been a run-of-the-mill FPS (which it certainly is in gameplay terms) but was much more due to some fantastic writing. Half-Life 2 is one of my favorite games. It's also one of the most influential, counting BioShock among its spiritual offspring. However, I never understood why it gets accolades for storytelling or for Gordon Freeman as a character. It doesn't really do anything that's outright bad, but it just...doesn't tell much of a story at all. And then the player is expected to connect in some way with all of this while knowing virtually nothing about what is happening. I understand that leaving the player in the dark is intentional on Valve's part, but I think their plan really failed here. Metal Gear Solid 4 (MGS4) is the absolute grandaddy of narrative train wrecks. Now granted, it is hamstrung somewhat by developments in Metal Gear Solid 2, but that's an excuse for being bad, not for being an utterly ridiculous piece of shit. It's even more of a shame considering the level of storytelling in the original Metal Gear Solid. In MGS1 we see Snake as a disillusioned warrior constantly questioning if he believes in what he's fighting for. The enemies and even his friends constantly deceive and betray him to try and get him to do their bidding and hope that he never finds out. The intrigue surrounding all of this kept me interested from beginning to end. Then you take your shirt off and fistfight the guy that voiced Leonardo in the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. That, my friends, is a game story. MGS4 is a mess of holes, bad characters, and overly drawn-out cutscenes all wrapped up in a vague political message that never quite makes itself clear. I personally have no problem with cutscenes as a method to tell parts of the story that just can't be expressed by the in-game engine, but god dammit they need to be good, especially if they're this long. And to be clear, this isn't even an exposition problem-the game's final hours are a veritable exposition orgy. It's that everything being explained has been twisted and contrived around so many times that it begins to resemble the narrative equivalent of a Jackson Pollack painting. The problems with MGS4's story could be (and probably have been somewhere on the internet) a 10-page essay on their own, so I'll stop here, but if someone wants to bring up the finer points of MGS4's WTFness in the comments, I'm all for it. So there you have it. Seven games, all of which I've seen receive accolades for storytelling, but only four of which deserve it. What about you? What games have taken an unrelenting crap on your cake? --------------- Read more here: http://www.gamecritics.com/richard-naik/why-does-game-storytelling-have-such-low-standards |
If you want a good story read a book,are watch a movie. lol
| Squilliam said: Its not that games generally have poor storylines its just that people have unrealistic expectations about what makes a good story. The fundamental purpose of a story is first to entertain. If a story fails to entertain then any merit it may have in terms of education, morality, intrigue or any other positive value you feel a good story must have is irrelevant as noone would care to engage with a story which fails in its fundamental purpose. In storytelling, often the simpler a story can be made, the better. It has always been a coveted ability of the better artists to convey more with less. A great writer can sometimes describe in a sentence what an average writer might meander for a chapter to explain. Just because a story is simple in structure doesn't mean that great meaning or great artistry cannot be portrayed within. Often by boiling away the parts of the story which aren't requred the writer can focus on the areas of greatest import to the story. Many of the stories which have been lauded as great have relatively simple plots which outline their overall structure. This is not a hindrence but a strength that intellectuals often overlook in great stories. Games are a medium unto themselves and should be judged as such. They are not movies and they aren't books. Whilst they share many of the characteristics of both they shouldn't be judged by the standards of either. Games are defined by interaction and any stories told are generally defined by such as well whereas books and movies are a passive and non-interactive medium. In almost all cases the player is a participant in the games story, even going as far as creating the story for himself with some games.
|
Entertaining depends on preference
Blade Runner. Some people find it boring as a wall. Some people like to pick apart things in piece things together same thing with anime.
I think restricting, Games in any way of storytelling is bad. What fits the atmosphere of the game. Would A cutscene work better, would QTE, would it be better after some tricky puzzles, to sit back and watch a movie being played between gameplay.
Basically you get a Movie-Videogame Hybrid then which exists.
If the purpose of a videogame is to entertain plotwise. Then Final Fantasy X with its bad dialogue and all, beats out 95% of movies for me. Because of the world, the illusion of attachment everything. So maybe it won't do the same for you, but it does for me. And many other people
Kantor said:
Everyone loved it when they first played it, and the majority still do. But once you've finished a game and taken a few months to think about it, it's almost never as good as when you first played it. You start to see the holes in the plot and the flaws in the gameplay. It's still one of my favourite games this gen, but I don't regard it as highly as I once did. |
why think about it,just enjoy the ride and move on. You can always find a flaw if you think about it to much. lol
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
