By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Naughty Dog wants to change the industry by rising above the 'idiot plot'

Mnementh said:

I agree that my test will force something out of games that is part of the enjoyment. But this thread is about story/plot, and that is not ported through interactivity. Surely, to judge the game as a whole, you need all parts. But that's not the story. and that's what I'm talking about, the story of no game so far is as good as the stories presented in good movies or books. That doesn't mean games are inferior as a form of art. Poems, paintings or songs are not as good in presenting a story (even games are better at that), but that doesn't make them inferior forms of art. They have different strengths. That the same for games. Storytelling is not the strength of games. But I see some potential to become better at that front too. That's why I was interested in the interview (and felt letdown by the actual content).

I think a distinction between "story" and "storytelling" needs to be made here. Regardless of medium, a good story needs to be told well, whether that's through good writing, great cinematography or intense interaction. Even the most basic of storylines can become brilliant if they're told well (e.g. the film Gladiator or the game Mass Effect 2).

Your original example of taking a playthrough and comparing it to a fully edited movie doesn't work because the movie is presented in its optimal storytelling form whilst the game has most of its emotional impact removed by the simple fact it's presented passively. It's the same as taking a full 6 hour rough cut of a film, asking the audience to edit it and compare that activity to playing a fully interactive game.

If you want to get down to barebones then the only way I could see of comparing storylines between the mediums would be to take bullet points of each of the main story, character and plot points and do a direct comparison. I actually think you'd find the best of video games hold up pretty well. The likes of Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Witcher, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect series, The Walking Dead etc. have huge amounts of depth in their plots and/or characters that can rival the best from film and books.

That doesn't mean that there's not room for improvement. I think there's a lot more potential in the medium of video games that has yet to be fully explored.



Around the Network
Ultr said:
Fireforgey said:
Ultr said:
Fireforgey said:
riderz13371 said:
RazorDragon said:
But before rising above the idiot plot, they should rise above the Indiana Jones plot.

You have never even played Uncharted, try to be less obvious bro. Welcome to VGChartz.


I myself have never played it, but I watched it on Youtube.  And....Yes, it was Indiana Jones.  I only wantched number one though but was underwhelmed. Not sure what people see in it.

Why bother commenting if you obviously never played the games especially never got over the first one.

.

YOU see, THIS IS A GAME, right, the point is to PLAY it. but hey thats just how I see it... what a troll comment pal :P

I don't see why this is a troll comment.  I saw one complete game and was completely underwhelmed by the story.  Sure I don't know how the gameplay goes but if you look at what Naughty Dog is saying, their innovation will come from not the gameplay, but storywise.  I am dubious about this fact because I don't beleive their story telling ability is really that great.

"Why bother commenting if you obviously never played the games especially never got over the first one"

Huh?  I just told you that I didn't play the game, how can it be obvious if I admitted to it?  Second of all, I never saw numbers 2 & 3 because I had no interest after the first one.  I thought that the story was very generic.  So forgive me for.....I guess trolling if that is what they call opinions (that aren't flaming) nowadays.  But, I doubt that they can move the industry forward in terms of story, not to say that they haven't or aren't pushing the industry forward in many other ways.  It's just that in this specific matter I don't believe them.

You will never get it until you play the game.

and I don't know how many times people have to say it.

Uncharted 1 was good

Uncharted 2 is an whole new level

So go play Uncharted 2 if you really want to know why the gaming industry is all over it


Alright...Granted you may have a point.  I have heard that 2 was much better than 1.  I'll have to see.



Fireforgey said:
Ultr said:
Fireforgey said:
Ultr said:
Fireforgey said:
riderz13371 said:
RazorDragon said:
But before rising above the idiot plot, they should rise above the Indiana Jones plot.

You have never even played Uncharted, try to be less obvious bro. Welcome to VGChartz.


I myself have never played it, but I watched it on Youtube.  And....Yes, it was Indiana Jones.  I only wantched number one though but was underwhelmed. Not sure what people see in it.

Why bother commenting if you obviously never played the games especially never got over the first one.

.

YOU see, THIS IS A GAME, right, the point is to PLAY it. but hey thats just how I see it... what a troll comment pal :P

I don't see why this is a troll comment.  I saw one complete game and was completely underwhelmed by the story.  Sure I don't know how the gameplay goes but if you look at what Naughty Dog is saying, their innovation will come from not the gameplay, but storywise.  I am dubious about this fact because I don't beleive their story telling ability is really that great.

"Why bother commenting if you obviously never played the games especially never got over the first one"

Huh?  I just told you that I didn't play the game, how can it be obvious if I admitted to it?  Second of all, I never saw numbers 2 & 3 because I had no interest after the first one.  I thought that the story was very generic.  So forgive me for.....I guess trolling if that is what they call opinions (that aren't flaming) nowadays.  But, I doubt that they can move the industry forward in terms of story, not to say that they haven't or aren't pushing the industry forward in many other ways.  It's just that in this specific matter I don't believe them.

You will never get it until you play the game.

and I don't know how many times people have to say it.

Uncharted 1 was good

Uncharted 2 is an whole new level

So go play Uncharted 2 if you really want to know why the gaming industry is all over it


Alright...Granted you may have a point.  I have heard that 2 was much better than 1.  I'll have to see.

Here's the difference between Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2. This is from both their Wiki pages.

Uncharted 1 - Uncharted received several accolades from web review sites such as Kotaku and IGN, who named it their PlayStation 3 game of the year.

Uncharted 2 - Uncharted 2 received over 200 Game of the Year awards.



Player1x3 said:
JWeinCom said:
Player1x3 said:
 

The argument i was making is that TLOU is more mature than mario - in almost every way.  I was responding to a guy that complained about mature content and adult themes in videogames.

And ESRB ratings have LOTS to do with game's visual content (which i used to prove my point), which they later use to assign the game to a specific audience/s

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#descriptors

The only argument you made to me was the picture one.  And again, just because the ESRB is saying that specific visual content is for mature audiences does not make a game mature.  The ESRB is describing the audience not the content.  If you want to say that TLOU has mature content because it's rated M, you must also logically say that Lego Batman has "everybody 10 plus content" within it, and that clearly makes no sense at all.

What exactly are you even arguing for anyway ? You seem to be arguing just for sake of arguing. I made my point clear multiple times in this thread, but i have no idea what yours is.

TLOU has mature visual content and mature story/characters. Mario (and most other nintendo games for that matter) have neither. Now what exactly are you trying to argue about there?

ESRB sees if a game has visually mature content and then assigns that game to a mature audience. ESRB sees if a game has a visual content that is suitable for "everybody 10'' and then assigns that game to everybody that is 10 and older audience. It's a simple rocket science, no?

you said something negative of nintendo, that was reason enough for him to jump in