Jump to content

Talk Show Host

Members
  • Content Count

    10,379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Games. And many more stuff. I particularly enjoy reading long books about story analysis, characterization, etc. Yup. My life is super interesting.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,081 profile views
  1. But that is what videogames do anyway. You have lost me here. We are trying to connect the nuances of character development and how it may be at odds with what is happening on screen and you just use a basic plot to justify all of it. I could say the same for Uncharted 4. Nathan is after treasure to help his brother and mercenaries are trying to kill him, so he kills back. It works fine.
  2. No, they managed that because their story means nothing and because they have no actual characters. If they had a main character who behaved like a normal person he would be at odds with the lunacy on screen, the entire validity of the world and his mission to create havoc in a living city. But because he is an empty vessel and has no mind of his own, this plot twist works. Basically, because there is no story, any plot twist would work and justify the gameplay. You could, for example, say that the Agency was mind controlled by a secret organization belonging into an alien invader which came from the Moon and it would make sense. When you have no actual story or characters you can literally create any explanation and it would work for the gameplay. Proper story games though, it's not so easy to connect the two.
  3. But Crackdown is not a game which focuses on story or characters. Of course it is easy to explain everything with a couple of paragraphs, if it makes ANY difference to the player.
  4. That is all good in theory but I would like to hear examples of how that would be possible. You want to make the bandit encounters more meaningful in a game that has already meaning in its simplest side quests (which is already a huge luxury and rarity for a reason)?. Bandit encounters are cannon fodder, they are there for the player to have something to do when they explore. Many players won't even bother discovering them all or even take the time to kill them and you want to allocate serious resources in making them deeper, especially when the encounters won't last more than a minute? I don't disagree about your general points but this particulate example makes little sense to me. And, yes, there is plenty of room for action games that are just action games, we agree here. I have said from the beginning that the problems lie in the art, how we tell a story, how we direct it, how we write our characters, more than the core gameplay. I think that is basically what you are saying with the "how the violence fits around more nuanced scenarios"?
  5. But what would be the realistic alternative in W3? The game already establishes the bandits as a resulting issue of the war, which makes sense. Would you remove them completely? Then you would risk making the gameworld feel empty, plus it would lose its fear factor, which urges the player to help the common people. A better story and characterization would be the solution to the TR example. But if you want less action in an action game then you will probably be changing genres. If you generally want less violence we have thousands of games with great stories which are not violent. It's a complex problem, no doubt about it. edit:The fact that a game needs to be way longer than a movie plays a huge role sometimes in our perception of this specific issue I believe. Imagine if the entire Godfather trilogy wasn't 9 hours but 18, and you would have to fill the last 9 with random assassinations and violence because, well, that's mob life. Not quite the masterpiece suddenly, is it?
  6. I know you are just making suggestions but what you actually suggest is not possible unless you considerably change the game. Having an honor system for killing bandits? Sure. Where would that apply in the game? What would affect? Who would care if someone was killing looters and murderers in that setting (especially when that someone makes villages habitable again)? They are evil, preying on the suffering of others. Having a stand off every now and then with random bandits would also drag the game down. You would need a conversation system, a loot system that makes sense and scales to keep the player interest up. If you wanted to have the option to knock them unconscious you would probably need a stealth system. Even suggesting that a Witcher should be losing to a group of humans is against the lore. These would be crazy things for a developer to do to satisfy a minor narrative gap that means very little. Especially when it comes to random enemies like bandits. That is not the way to deal with something like this imo. Your movies' example makes sense and that's my main point: they use their superlative artistic skills to cover their tracks. Plus, they are much shorter. But they do suffer from it. Especially action movies. If you change genres, like horror movies and horror games, you can see that videogames stop becoming mindless killing sprees. If you have an rpg you can choose how to approach things, if you have an adventure there's enough justification and storytelling, if you have a stealth game you have options for non lethal kills. Games don't suffer from this divide unless we are talking about specific genres, the same with movies. Your general points are great but they can't be applied universally without significantly changing a game or a character. How can you have a cold killing machine and still keeping Nathan Drake the same? You would have to change him completely. How would you have him deal with the numerous mercearies stealthily without making it a stealth game at heart? How can all games with a story and killing have multiple characters? Also, developer's artisric vision comes into play as well: they may want to make a specific game, not something that gives all these options. That's why I'm saying that the best thing to do is to get better at the fundamentals of storytelling, writing and characterization. That's what cinema did. And we have already started doing that.
  7. Talk Show Host

    Elite Dangerous - Exploration is now fun... maybe

    Yes,yes of course.
  8. Yeah, can't argue there. But I look at it a bit differently. We actually have thousands of games that involve little or no killing. We just need to become mature enough to promote them and support them. Some of the best movies in cinema involve killers, psychopaths, war. But the art is so elevated there that it makes us think about the human condition first. When we see, for example, Michael Corleone doing all those murders we think that he is doing them to protect his family, that he is sucked into that criminal world he never wanted to be a part of, we sympathize with him even though he is clearly a psychopath. Games don't have that kind of storytelling or characterization yet and that is why most heroes come across as being completely different when it comes to their gameplay and story persona. And that is why LoU, for example, is so important and a breakthrough in storytelling. We care more about Joel's decisions, his suffering, his relationships than we care about how many people he killed. That is why I think the solution to this has to do more with elevating the art, first and foremost. With that said, Rockstar's problem is exactly that: they try to make characters that justify their gameplay instead of elevating their art (which I believe they did in RDR2 compared to their previous efforts).
  9. But what more can a developer do than give you the choice? As I said, this whole thing makes sense as a complain, yes, but not more than what we experience in movies. The best thing to do is to improve the storytelling where actions make more sense as actions and are not being used simply as gameplay loops. But that is why there are different genres. You don't see killing sprees in Detroit, for example. In action games, heroes kill. In action movies, heroes kill. Focusing on a character's murderous actions and how it conflicts with his or her persona is a fool's errand. There will never be a moment where a hero has justification to kill hundreds of enemies (unless they are actually monsters). But the storytelling, the characterization, the scene setting can make this kind of thing take a back seat, as it happens in movies. And yes, some less action for the sake of action would be a step in the right direction anyway.
  10. Talk Show Host

    Elite Dangerous - Exploration is now fun... maybe

    The only real risk I have ever felt is landing on low g planets. That is really a great gaming moment and very tense. Another one was I was trying to land on a fast orbiting moon. It took real skill and, when I landed, just the view of the huge planet rolling around me dropped my jaw to the floor. But that's it. I never knew space is so safe.
  11. That is my point though. You can say this for any game ever, but then you need to separate genres where it is acceptable or not. Then characters, then settings, etc. The real problem is the storytelling. Movies suffer from this all the time but it doesn't impact our fun because they have better storytelling and they last 2 hours. In a game where storytelling is worse and takes many more hours to complete this issue becomes much more evident. The "group of people" you mention in W3 are always evil in the game world and it is your choice to deal with them or not. The game doesn't force you. Even so, what would your alternative be as a solution? Or how would you make an action game with a story?
  12. Talk Show Host

    Elite Dangerous - Exploration is now fun... maybe

    They do, but only if you want to take your gaming to another level. Learning how to scan planets or finding a shipyard with a cheap ship is not "another level" though and I shouldn't be required to exit the game. Anyway, I still have faith in the game that it hasn't reached its potential, so here's hoping.
  13. I'm not sure I'm getting the big issue here. I understand the general sentiment, sure, but movies do this all the time and we never give it a second thought. What's the acceptable killing limit? Would killing 10 enemies be ok instead of 100? Then what game would you make? People usually complain about this not because they want more coherence but because they don't find the actual story to their liking. Why wasn't this an issue with Geralt and it is with Arthur? They are both quite dark individuals and they both kill during their main quests. I've lost count the amount of times Geralt had to kill mercenaries, priests, bandits, etc.
  14. Talk Show Host

    Elite Dangerous - Exploration is now fun... maybe

    You think so? I can't remember another game where I felt that I had to follow forums and YouTube videos just to be in touch with what happens in it. Many things could easily be small game loops, like gaining the ability to find out where the best shops are, the cheaper ones, the materials needed. Instead they are just apps or forums. You have very little sense of achievement when in order to be efficient or simply have fun you have to alt tab the game. Every update I'm expecting some meaningful sandbox changes because I want to play again, but no matter what happens the core gameplay stays the same. And the core gameplay is actually very limited.
  15. Talk Show Host

    Elite Dangerous - Exploration is now fun... maybe

    I mean all the explanations and communication about events or the state of the game. If you don't follow the forums or watch youtube presentations you are likely to miss important mechanics and developments about the game.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.