Riachu said: And a wordy cutscene fest is bad how? Do the way a story gets told in a video games really affect the quality of the story that much? MGS series, for example, works better with cutscenes than with dialouge trees.   BTW, aren't most of these cutscene fest games coming from Japan?

 

The way a story is told, in any medium, is even more important than the content of the story itself. If you've ever taken a college-level creative writing class, for example, one of the first things they tell you is, "show, don't tell." To illustrate, here's an example:

Telling: "A man stood in the forest. He was shot in the head. He fell down and died."

Showing: "A crack rang out in the night air, and a stream of crimson began to cascade down his forehead. Autumn leaves scattered below him as his body crumpled like a rag doll. A craclking thump echoed amongst the trees. He twitched, once, twice, and then moved no more."

Which one would you rather read? The second, right? As you can see, "telling" is simple exposition - an explanation of what happened. Showing, however, immerses the reader in what's going on through sensory detail; instead of simply relaying events, it allows the reader to feel as though he's actually there, experiencing the events of the story with his own eyes, ears, nostrils, and so on. In the above example of "showing," you're not actually told that the man dies; however, you can easily glean from the sensory details that he did. And, furthermore, that showing is much more interesting than simply being told that he dies.

In other words, any amateur writer can put a bunch of events down on paper. It takes someone with talent to go one step further, taking the medium to new levels.

Most cutscenes and non-interactive dialogue are the equivalent of telling - they relate a series of events in a mundane fashion. However, something like Bioshock, where the story is told by your surroundings and a series of interactive events, shows the player what is going on by involving him in the action. Instead of watching events play out, the player experiences the events, sometimes to the point of actually having some control over their outcome. Through those means, the player can figure out the story in a much more intuitive and interesting way.

And that is the difference between good and bad storytelling in video games.

Get what I'm saying?

"...except games aren't plays. Nor are games movies or books. Games are games. A game can still have the "unified vision of its creators" with branching story paths. In fact, I'd venture to say that it takes a far more visionary developer to create a game with branching dialogue trees and such than it does to create a wordy cutscene-fest. There's a reason why there's so many of the latter and so few of the former."

Well, the Final Fantasy games are more like operas at any rate. Your entries lead me to believe that you would think that Mass Effect has some kind of good story. However, Play magazine that was known as Diehard Gamefan in the mid nineties said that Mass Effect has a cookie cutter storyline and cardboard characters and awarded Mass Effect an 8.7. I have already posted a link to their review of Final Fantasy XII where they give the game a 10 and say it has an amazingly restrained story that one never really wishes to leave.

Half-Life 2 and Planescape: Torment have amazing stories? One is just an alien invasion narrative like your typical episode of the X-Files. I guess it makes for a good story but I doubt it would have the depth of a Shakesperian play or Final Fantasy X for the care and identification that one can come to feel for the characters. And Planescape: Torment's story may win points for the fact that it is quirky with odd characters, but the same can be said for Incredible Crisis, Grim Fandango, and any of the children's cartoons that they show on the Cartoon Network during the day.

Paul_Warren said: "...except games aren't plays. Nor are games movies or books. Games are games. A game can still have the "unified vision of its creators" with branching story paths. In fact, I'd venture to say that it takes a far more visionary developer to create a game with branching dialogue trees and such than it does to create a wordy cutscene-fest. There's a reason why there's so many of the latter and so few of the former." Well, the Final Fantasy games are more like operas at any rate. Your entries lead me to believe that you would think that Mass Effect has some kind of good story. However, Play magazine that was known as Diehard Gamefan in the mid nineties said that Mass Effect has a cookie cutter storyline and cardboard characters and awarded Mass Effect an 8.7. I have already posted a link to their review of Final Fantasy XII where they give the game a 10 and say it has an amazingly restrained story that one never really wishes to leave. Half-Life 2 and Planescape: Torment have amazing stories? One is just an alien invasion narrative like your typical episode of the X-Files. I guess it makes for a good story but I doubt it would have the depth of a Shakesperian play or Final Fantasy X for the care and identification that one can come to feel for the characters. And Planescape: Torment's story may win points for the fact that it is quirky with odd characters, but the same can be said for Incredible Crisis, Grim Fandango, and any of the children's cartoons that they show on the Cartoon Network during the day.

 

All your comment about Mass Effect and FFXII proves is that "gaming journalists" don't know how to critically analyze the games they review. But then, we already knew that.

Also, you've obviously never played either HL2 or P:T.

Paul_Warren said: "Ill have to say that i agree. Theres no other RPG series as important as Pokemon simply because there are more people buying these games than FF. The Gamerankings/Metacritic comparisons aside,simply a much larger no of people enjoy Pokemon games." Are Justin Timberlake's albums more important than Tom Waits'?

Yes, for the music industry(driven by money) Justin Timberlake's albums are more important. Not everyone likes them, but since a greater no of people do, they become more important.Is there any other way to look at it?

 

"All your comment about Mass Effect and FFXII proves is that "gaming journalists" don't know how to critically analyze the games they review. But then, we already knew that.




Oh no, Heather Smith and Eric Patterson both knew exactly what they were talking about when they wrote their reviews of Final Fantasy XII and Mass Effect respectively.


"Also, you've obviously never played either HL2 or P:T."

Yes and you are obviously highly intelligent but in this case, you seem to be putting too much of a premium upon your own ideas about the matter rather than what other people have to think which is a weakness.

Your explanation from your creative writing course is a prime example of that. I will illustrate with three examples.


One example you say that people prefer to be shown what occurs in a story rather than to be told simply that a man was shot and died. Well, that is true to a point. However, it is also a fact that when watching a movie or listening to a story, children and most people for that matter don't want all of the details that you provide in your second example. That type of stuff is nice window dressing that can appeal to one in a sentimental mode of thought; however, what children really want to know when watching movie or listening to a story is who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. They really want one to cut out all that window dressing and tell them someone really died or not. The most important part of any joke is the punchline. The most important part of a sonnet is the resolution.

Again, dialogue trees and the like only serve to complicate the matter and to take away from the core story.

For some reason you don't like Final Fantasy but many other people do. And the fact that you prefer one thing one way and they prefer it another doesn't mean that you have more intelligence or talent.

Faulkner liked to add a lot of window dressing to his stories, yet the best American writer of the early half of the twentieth century was H. P. Lovecraft. And Kerouac also liked to embellish things and complicate things, yet the best American writer of the last half of the twentieth century was Charles Bukowski even though his writing style, like Lovecraft's, was much less complex than either Faulkner or Kerouac's.

"Yes, for the music industry(driven by money) Justin Timberlake's albums are more important. Not everyone likes them, but since a greater no of people do, they become more important.Is there any other way to look at it?"

Yes because as works of art rather than as works of commercial value, Waits work is much more important. He has won many awards over the years that Timberlake never will and Waits' audience is a much more sophisticated audience than the teeny-bopper crowd that makes up the majority of Timberlake's fans, and they would laugh in your face if you were to imply that Justin Timberlake is in any way artistically superior to Tom Waits.

Paul_Warren said: "Yes, for the music industry(driven by money) Justin Timberlake's albums are more important. Not everyone likes them, but since a greater no of people do, they become more important.Is there any other way to look at it?" Yes because as works of art rather than as works of commercial value, Waits work is much more important. He has won many awards over the years that Timberlake never will and Waits' audience is a much more sophisticated audience than the teeny-bopper crowd that makes up the majority of Timberlake's fans, and they would laugh in your face if you were to imply that Justin Timberlake is in any way artistically superior to Tom Waits.

 

And why are you assuming importance and artistic superiority to be the same thing?As far as entertainment business goes, the piece of work which reaches more people is more important than the piece of work aimed at a select few. As long as the "teeny boppers" have the money to buy albums, they automatically become as important for the sustainance of the music industry as the more sophisticated audience.

Well there are many different types of importance. There are importance of an artist's works to the recording industry at a particular moment in time as reflected by artists like Justin Timberlake and Brittany Spears. Then there is importance or credibility that has been sustained over time. Examples would include Tom Waits, Lou Reed, and Pat Benatar whose works have been around since the seventies and will continue to be cool to members of the intelligencia for a long time to come in the future. As are Mario, Final Fantasy, Kojima, and Zelda to games. Finally then there is the artistic importance of an artists' work over time. Again as exemplified by artists like Bob Dylan, Madonna, Jim Morrison, Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, The Beatles and Lou Reed, Final Fantasy, Mario, Kojima, and Zelda. The works of those like Justin Timberlake and Brittany Spears in comparison will be like flashes in the pan. No one will be putting any of their songs in important films fifty years from now while there's a strong possibilty that Waits' works will still be highly regarded.

Of course there are artists who come between these two extremes. It is possible that the music of Kurt Cobain, though not the Foo Fighers, Eminem, Gwen Stefani, P!nk, Halo, and Gears of War, for example will still have relevance in the future.

FF is as important as you want it to be.

For me, FF is very important. if it aren't important to you.. meh..

Final Fantasy is the shit. Best video game series ever. FFXIII/VXIII/AgitoXIII, Dissidia will all fucking rule.

Main games in the Final Fantasy series raise the bar every time.