shio said: DTG said: You haven't played Planescape, have you? It does explain immortality, it's implications, and goes into depth for it; only the developers tried to show it naturally, and not convoluted (which is what MGS2 was like). In the beginning it is explained roughly (or rather, naturally) the immortality of the Nameless One. the player then will experience death, rebirth, loss of identity, immortality; and he will see the impact of the Nameless One's past, who he was, what he did, the evidences he left. The sporadic gain of memories from past lifes will leave the player wondering more about him, without ever having his questions fully answered. Yes I have played the game, but your point about it explaining immortality through the gameplay sequence of death and rebirth was false.The game actually explained immortality through pages and pages of vast dialogue. It baffles me that you would even mention Planescape as a game that has compact storytelling presented through its gameplay when it has the largest script ever written for a video game. Not having fully answered its questions isn't a demonstration of good storytelling. Hell, MGS2 had more loose ends than any game out there. It's simply a style of storytelling not a matter of quality. DTG, did you see my previous post about about pointing NPC interaction as a viable way to integrate the story into the gameplay? No matter how big the game's script is (btw, Planescape's writing is divine), if it's used through NPC Interaction then it's already inside the gameplay, more so when it's games that have choices/consequences. Planescape has almost all of it's story (well, most of it) inside the gameplay by default. And sometimes the the best way to explain something is to experience it. That is basic pathology, teachers always use exercises, after explaining the thesis to the students, to demonstrate it. This would let the students better absorb the information given. Same thing for games with complex stories. This is not the case of MGS2 or MGS4. They exclusively use non-interactive scenes to tell the story, and that is just wrong when it's story-heavy games. It does not give the player anything playable and worst of all, it's storytelling is convoluted and not simple enough in many parts, leaving some people mind-**cked.

I hesitate to get involved in this as I have not played either game. But NPC interaction, if it is in the form of "listen to me talk at you", is exactly like a cutscene, only if it's text then it's like a book instead of a movie. And "pick one of five things for me to talk at you about" is not significantly better other than breaking up the "bookscenes" into smaller parts.

Since I have not played Planescape, it would be silly of me not to give you the chance to point out that what I describe is not at all like the "NPC interaction" you refer to in that game. Please tell me how it differs. Perhaps the main difference here is between what is optional and what is mandatory, or whether you can choose when to experience it. I get the feeling that most of MGS's cutscenes are mandatory and undelayable.

And for the record, I consider any cutscene longer than ten minutes, except at the opening and ending of a game, to be completely unacceptable. The game should be able to tell most of its story through the game itself, only having to resort to cutscenes at certain times -- briefly, before returning to the game. I think that Resident Evil 4 struck a pretty good balance here, even if the story it was telling wasn't spectacular.

DMeisterJ said: Why are we still discussing this? It's been proven false and exaggeration. So, let's move on... Which version of GTA IV is better?

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=187049

Yup disproven dont play it if you dont want to Im gonna get it and love it! Next!

makingmusic476 said: Wait, this has been proven false? I only read the first few posts of the thread.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=187049

FALSE Ouch Biatches

Daddo Splat said: makingmusic476 said: Wait, this has been proven false? I only read the first few posts of the thread. http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=187049 FALSE Ouch Biatches

Good job with reading any of the last 30 or so posts in this thread that aren't even talking about the 90 minute cutscene rumor anymore.  You're about 20 posts late to the party for your announcement also.  Thanks for the update though.

Profcrab said: Daddo Splat said: makingmusic476 said: Wait, this has been proven false? I only read the first few posts of the thread. http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=187049 FALSE Ouch Biatches Good job with reading any of the last 30 or so posts in this thread that aren't even talking about the 90 minute cutscene rumor anymore.  You're about 20 posts late to the party for your announcement also.  Thanks for the update though.

So funny when people don't read the whole thread.

Sorry, I was late and didnt see the "fake" announcement and posted something about the 90min cut scenes.

shio said: Words Of Wisdom said: shio said: Kotor 2 is widely recognized as having a much better story, characters and interaction than Kotor 1. The first 75% of the game is much superior than Kotor 1. The last 25% weren't good (except that last talk with Kreia) because of time constraints: Obsidian only had 12 months to make the game! But a much better example of Obsidian's superiority is Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, which has THE best narrative in an RPG since Planescape: Torment. Widely perceived as better by who? The only thing KotOR2 improved on was the general flow of combat. The characters were not that much better at all. Heck, when I first saw Carth I was like "Hey it's Atton!" and then he introduced himself as Carth. I was like, "Wait, what?" You see, I had the distinct pleasure of playing Knights of the Old Republic 2 BEFORE the original. Which means I was able to enjoy KotOR2 quite a bit and it was indeed a good game. Upon playing the original KotOR, I kept getting the "Been there, done that" feeling and I slowly realized that almost every game element minus maybe Kreia had been borrowed from the original. The "Surprise, you're Revan!" plot was lame in both though. Kotor 2 is better percieved by hardcore RPG fans, and I concur. This reminds me of a thread about this a few weeks ago on Gaf, and Kotor 2 then was talked as being the best by most. Both games have many bland characters, but Kreia was one of the best characters I've ever seen. Her ideologies were consistant from beginning to the end, and the reasons she gave for the story twist baffled me, not only by being unexpected but because it also made so much sense. Anyway, both are nowhere near as good as Baldur's Gate 2. EDIT: let's just agree we disagree

 Not by any of the ones I know.  All the hardcore RPG fans I know saw KOTOR 2 as crap compared to the original because it has a lot of dangling plot lines that don't lead anywhere, and it just ends abruptly.  Also they weren't too fond of the story even before it fell off the rails... but it was serviciable at least.

Like you said... the last 25% is crap... and the most important part of any story is the ending. 

BCrayfish said: Wow, 90 minutes is nuts. Maybe if we're lucky they'll have tl:dr versions for those of us that would rather have everything summed up in five minutes. Oh I know, they could talk in fast squeaky voices and move at super high speed. :3

 Maybe they can do it if a cutscene's exposition alone is enough to jack up the age rating even further, after all we do not want the game to be name Metal Gear Solid 4ever.

The cutscenes are probably that long for a very good reason. It doesn't matter anyways this will be the game of 2008.

As long as the game doesnt try and teach me philosophy, cutscenes arent a problem