Do you seriously have to lower yourself to insults in order to get your point across? I can do the same thing and would have just as much credibility as your inflammatory statement.
I am not insulting anybody. Yeah, the writers of TP's story. But that's perfectly allowed. Any movie review does the same. It wasn't meant to flame that poster, I honestly think people who think Midna amounts to "good charcterization" would be blown away by even the most insignifigant character from, say, Mad Men or The Sopranos by comparison. An extra on The Wire has more layers than Midna.
No one is talking about anything outside the context of Zelda. Fuck, Planescape Torment doesn't have the same complexity as Proust's works. It's a shitty game.
They were just examples, as you know perfectly well. Way to nitpick. And I also kept it inside of the context of Zelda at first as well, by pointing out how Midna is just Navi except way more annoying and unlikable* (not that there was much to Navi, but still). When it comes to direct companions Ezlo and Tatl for example are tons more interesting and compelling than Midna.
* ALSO not saying that a character HAS to be likable to be interesting, before someone starts nitpicking on that.
That's debatable in a series where character development (or even presence) is either limited or non-existent. Midna's character shares a similar context with Ezlo, but has a far more prominent role in the story, even going so far as to arguably have a comparable or even bigger role than Link does.
Some people don't find her annoying or unlikeable. These are probably the people who like her more than Ezlo or Tatl. She's a prominent character whose intentions and motivations change as the the story progresses. This pretty much automatically places her among the upper echelons of Zelda characters.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
I enjoyed TP a lot, but that's mostly because it was basically OoT with a dash of LttP, on a modern engine. I mean, at heart, Zelda is about This dungeon, get item, beat boss, etc. That isn't a bad thing. The important thing is the gameplay and setting, and I thought that both were done rather well.
Also, I was one of those who did like Midna, because her progression was interesting to me.
Do you seriously have to lower yourself to insults in order to get your point across? I can do the same thing and would have just as much credibility as your inflammatory statement.
I am not insulting anybody. Yeah, the writers of TP's story. But that's perfectly allowed. Any movie review does the same. It wasn't meant to flame that poster, I honestly think people who think Midna amounts to "good charcterization" would be blown away by even the most insignifigant character from, say, Mad Men or The Sopranos by comparison. An extra on The Wire has more layers than Midna.
No one is talking about anything outside the context of Zelda. Fuck, Planescape Torment doesn't have the same complexity as Proust's works. It's a shitty game.
But see, that point works both ways.
Some people here are referring to Midna AS IF she were a work by Proust or Shakespeare or something. That's what's kind of laughable about the whole thing and what irks people like Opium I think. Liking Midna is fine, but keep some perspective. If you say that she had "great characterization" at least follow it up by "for a pretty one-dimensional sidekick in a video game not typically known for its charaterizations" or something similar. Saying that Midna had great characterization period like earlier ITT, as if she were Ulysses or Hamlet or Michael Corleone or something, is just kind of silly.
Some people here are referring to Midna AS IF she were a work by Proust or Shakespeare or something. That's what's kind of laughable about the whole thing and what irks people like Opium I think. Liking Midna is fine, but keep some perspective. If you say that she had "great characterization" at least follow it up by "for a pretty one-dimensional sidekick in a video game not typically known for its charaterizations" or something similar. Saying that Midna had great characterization period like earlier ITT, as if she were Ulysses or Hamlet or Michael Corleone or something, is just kind of silly.
Perspective.
This is not something that needs to be stated
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Some people here are referring to Midna AS IF she were a work by Proust or Shakespeare or something. That's what's kind of laughable about the whole thing and what irks people like Opium I think. Liking Midna is fine, but keep some perspective. If you say that she had "great characterization" at least follow it up by "for a pretty one-dimensional sidekick in a video game not typically known for its charaterizations" or something similar. Saying that Midna had great characterization period like earlier ITT, as if she were Ulysses or Hamlet or Michael Corleone or something, is just kind of silly.
In the next Zelda game, every dungeon has to have meaning, context, a reason to exist and a layout that actually makes sense.
I don't want to pretend the Ooccoos actually built their city that way, I don't want to pretend that the Gorons built a mine in a way that requires the usage of Iron Boots and Bow and I cannot suspend disbelief enough to understand what the fudge that Forest Temple was for. It's not that they suck to play, it's just that they only exist for their own sake. Did hylians create a big-ass temple in order to hide a boomerang, did some ancient civilization do that or do you think stuff like that is too difficult for kids, too boring? Well, tough, man up and realize that you are making things easy for yourselves at the expense of any gamer that isn't pre-pubescent.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it. No introducing light spirits and provinces and new sages and shit because you feel like it. And no more forest-fire-water to get three damn things before it Gets Serious.
Twilight Princess had its moments but nothing felt really deep, challenging or engrossing. Hopefully Miyamoto will come through with his words abot renewal.
Some people here are referring to Midna AS IF she were a work by Proust or Shakespeare or something. That's what's kind of laughable about the whole thing and what irks people like Opium I think. Liking Midna is fine, but keep some perspective. If you say that she had "great characterization" at least follow it up by "for a pretty one-dimensional sidekick in a video game not typically known for its charaterizations" or something similar. Saying that Midna had great characterization period like earlier ITT, as if she were Ulysses or Hamlet or Michael Corleone or something, is just kind of silly.
Perspective.
This is not something that needs to be stated
Normally I'd agree, but with some of the irrational zealotry apparently surrounding this specififc game it made sense to point it out.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it.
I actually don't feel this is terribly important, seeing how (story-wise at least) the best games in the series are actually the spinoffs/sort of standalone stories (MM, LA). But I do agree on your other points. I have good faith that Nintendo can pull it off after playing PH, however.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it.
I actually don't feel this is terribly important, seeing how (story-wise at least) the best games in the series are actually the spinoffs/sort of standalone stories (MM, LA). But I do agree on your other points. I have good faith that Nintendo can pull it off after playing PH, however.
Well, I still felt it was important that WW gave a holla about OoT, albeit only in passing (but you changed the castle and everything around it entirely Nintendo whyyyyYYYYYYYYYYY!). See, it's not about tying everything together (this ain't the Saw series or whatev) but it is about basic respect and concern from the developer. I mean, if Gears of War 2 suddenly decided that Imulsion never existed in the first place, like pretended it never even featured in the first game, people would have gone bazookas.
You don't have to continue weaving the carpet straight ahead, but please don't turn it into a quilt.
Edit: I perfectly agree that MM blows the competition out of the water. It had one dungeon too little but the balance between dungeon-crawl/plot-progression and freedom/exploration was just right. Oh, and it had death and sadness and love and catatonic worry and cool music and and and... Basically stuff that narrows the demographic even an infinitesimal bit. I wanna see more sack like that in the next Zelda, Nintendo.
More edit: Oh, BTW, anyone else who thought Galaxy's levels were really linear and that most of the stars had pretty dull routes? I mean, there were just all these set-pieces and easily beat bosses and enemies. Too much trial and error, and not enough crazy level design. Oh, and the story. And the toads. Man, fuck them Toads.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it.
I actually don't feel this is terribly important, seeing how (story-wise at least) the best games in the series are actually the spinoffs/sort of standalone stories (MM, LA). But I do agree on your other points. I have good faith that Nintendo can pull it off after playing PH, however.
Well, I still felt it was important that WW gave a holla about OoT, albeit only in passing (but you changed the castle and everything around it entirely Nintendo whyyyyYYYYYYYYYYY!). See, it's not about tying everything together (this ain't the Saw series or whatev) but it is about basic respect and concern from the developer. I mean, if Gears of War 2 suddenly decided that Imulsion never existed in the first place, like pretended it never even featured in the first game, people would have gone bazookas.
You don't have to continue weaving the carpet straight ahead, but please don't turn it into a quilt.
I just don't think Nintendo has the writing talent in-house to pull that kind of thing off, tbh. This is not meant as an insult, their talents just lie elsewhere (they are still king when it comes to pure and glorious gameplay joy as far as I'm concerned). I think we'll just have to accept that the Legend of Zelda will never be a Grim Fandango. And Link will never be a Manny Calavera, and Midna will certainly never be a Glottis.
Zelda timeline discussions are among the most retarded on all the internet. Top 5 easily. I just wish PA would be free of it. Just take it to GameFAQs or something where all the other idiots collude.
Apart from the relative pointlessness of them why are they so bad?
Because 99% of it doesn't rise above the level of fanfic and none of it is canon anyway since Miyamoto, Anouma etc. couldn't care less (which brings me to another of the top 5 most retarded internet discussions: canonicity of fictional works) so you might as well discuss the timeline of Mario Party. It's exactly the same situation. Utterly pointless and ridiculous.
More edit: Oh, BTW, anyone else who thought Galaxy's levels were really linear and that most of the stars had pretty dull routes? I mean, there were just all these set-pieces and easily beat bosses and enemies. Too much trial and error, and not enough crazy level design. Oh, and the story. And the toads. Man, fuck them Toads.
I find it difficult to see how Galaxy's level design could have been any crazier. Really, what trial and error? Only a few stars required that approach.
More edit: Oh, BTW, anyone else who thought Galaxy's levels were really linear and that most of the stars had pretty dull routes? I mean, there were just all these set-pieces and easily beat bosses and enemies. Too much trial and error, and not enough crazy level design. Oh, and the story. And the toads. Man, fuck them Toads.
I find it difficult to see how Galaxy's level design could have been any crazier. Really, what trial and error? Only a few stars required that approach.
I can say that the whole system of more deaths/more 1ups really isn't so stimulating. I much preferred the 64, Sunshine approaches becaus they forced me to actually get better.
Anyway, to me the mario games have always been about physics and wacky playground objects to navigate and tackle. Not races with boos or bosses that Take Three Hits or tiny set-pieces that are small levels of themselves, and not integrated in the larger ones. Balancing around on that ball with a star inside deserved more attention.
In the next Zelda game, every dungeon has to have meaning, context, a reason to exist and a layout that actually makes sense.
I don't want to pretend the Ooccoos actually built their city that way, I don't want to pretend that the Gorons built a mine in a way that requires the usage of Iron Boots and Bow and I cannot suspend disbelief enough to understand what the fudge that Forest Temple was for. It's not that they suck to play, it's just that they only exist for their own sake. Did hylians create a big-ass temple in order to hide a boomerang, did some ancient civilization do that or do you think stuff like that is too difficult for kids, too boring? Well, tough, man up and realize that you are making things easy for yourselves at the expense of any gamer that isn't pre-pubescent.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it. No introducing light spirits and provinces and new sages and shit because you feel like it. And no more forest-fire-water to get three damn things before it Gets Serious.
Twilight Princess had its moments but nothing felt really deep, challenging or engrossing. Hopefully Miyamoto will come through with his words abot renewal.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
Also, games are rarely designed in the way you are asking for for a good reason. In zelda, they want you to get a specific item that the upcoming boss is designed around. They then throw a dungeon on top of it.
The closest I've found to what you are asking for is Fallout 3. Everything is kind of scattered about the world as if it were a real world, but then a lot of people miss out on a lot of the content and the individual pieces can't hold as much meaning. Like getting the dog. In a zelda game, the dog would be located near the end of a specific dungeon and once you got him, he would be your best friend for life. But in fallout 3, you could go through the game without even realizing a dog friend existed. And even when you find him, he's not an important piece of the game. He could die and you'd continue the game as if he wasn't there to begin with.
I like zelda and fallout 3, but I understand the reasoning behind both approaches. Also, since when does anything in a videogame have to make sense. I mean, in resident evil, where did they find the architects to design those mansions and police stations.
In the next Zelda game, every dungeon has to have meaning, context, a reason to exist and a layout that actually makes sense.
I don't want to pretend the Ooccoos actually built their city that way, I don't want to pretend that the Gorons built a mine in a way that requires the usage of Iron Boots and Bow and I cannot suspend disbelief enough to understand what the fudge that Forest Temple was for. It's not that they suck to play, it's just that they only exist for their own sake. Did hylians create a big-ass temple in order to hide a boomerang, did some ancient civilization do that or do you think stuff like that is too difficult for kids, too boring? Well, tough, man up and realize that you are making things easy for yourselves at the expense of any gamer that isn't pre-pubescent.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it. No introducing light spirits and provinces and new sages and shit because you feel like it. And no more forest-fire-water to get three damn things before it Gets Serious.
Twilight Princess had its moments but nothing felt really deep, challenging or engrossing. Hopefully Miyamoto will come through with his words abot renewal.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies.
IMO Grim Fandango can hold its own against some of the greatest movies of all time. It certainly is possible to tell a great story in a game. It is extremely rare, which basically tells you how incredibly hard it is.
In the next Zelda game, every dungeon has to have meaning, context, a reason to exist and a layout that actually makes sense.
I don't want to pretend the Ooccoos actually built their city that way, I don't want to pretend that the Gorons built a mine in a way that requires the usage of Iron Boots and Bow and I cannot suspend disbelief enough to understand what the fudge that Forest Temple was for. It's not that they suck to play, it's just that they only exist for their own sake. Did hylians create a big-ass temple in order to hide a boomerang, did some ancient civilization do that or do you think stuff like that is too difficult for kids, too boring? Well, tough, man up and realize that you are making things easy for yourselves at the expense of any gamer that isn't pre-pubescent.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it. No introducing light spirits and provinces and new sages and shit because you feel like it. And no more forest-fire-water to get three damn things before it Gets Serious.
Twilight Princess had its moments but nothing felt really deep, challenging or engrossing. Hopefully Miyamoto will come through with his words abot renewal.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
Also, games are rarely designed in the way you are asking for for a good reason. In zelda, they want you to get a specific item that the upcoming boss is designed around. They then throw a dungeon on top of it.
Applesauce. TP's biggest crowning achievement was that mansion dungeon, because it actually was built in such a way as to have purpose beyond a shell constructed around a specific artifact. And in Wind Waker, at least, most of the dungeons literally were shells constructed around an artifact - they were built to guard the thing or, in some cases, the boss. Twilight Princess got that right with some dungeons, and got it REALLY right with the mansion, but on more than one occasion, like in the mines, it tried to synthesize the two and fell flat on its face.
TP defenders weird me out because they seem to laud the game while admitting that their praise is the result of lower standards. Midna, for example, isn't well-written by any standard, she's just written. She starts off with an unwholesome character quirk, that quirk's motivation is explained and then cast aside by way of character development - it's the most basic trick in the book. If anything, she's interesting because she's part of a logical progression in Zelda's "helper" characters: Navi was basically a blank slate; Tatl had a layer of snark on Navi's template; the Red King had both a personality and an added origin story; and Midna had a bit of character development sprinkled on the Red King's evolution. There's nothing wrong with Midna, but saying she's well-written just exposes one as the type for whom this game was developed - like someone else said, it's one of the most concessionary games I've played - and was chomping at the bit to praise it from the word "go."
Also, the game is undeniably weaker as far as the NPC's are concerned. In Majora's Mask and especially Wind Waker, nearly every character was immediately recognizable from the other, from their personality to their silhouette (and WW flaunted it too, just look at their little statuette quest). TP tried to do that, but blew its load on the bomb-maker and his family (and the yetis, though they got tons of screentime and the probably helped) and the others just felt forced or underused. NPC's like the bug princess and the band of adventurers had peripheral roles at best and their character designs just screamed "look how unique they are from everyone else" whereas WW could get the same effect just from widening the hips and fiddling with their color palette (the cel-shading helped a lot there). TP is just weak tea in so many places that you have to shut your eyes and plug your ears to praise it as the end-all-be-all like you logically could with every one of its predecessors. The only parts I feel comfortable praising are the mansion and the fact that they basically made this iteration of Ganon into an olde-worlde Terminator.
The mansion was a step in the right direction, but they should have dared to go the distance and really create an actual mansion that just happened to work as a dungeon, not a mansion obviously created around videogame mechanics. Kinda like the Spinner in that regard - a great idea that needed love and care.
"the fact that they basically made this iteration of Ganon into an olde-worlde Terminator."
Couldn't agree more. Dude starts of as a demon pig who laughs at you on the game over screen, then becomes a tall muscular guy in a bad-ass get-up who rules over a bunch of hot tanned amazons and now he doesn't even fall over
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
I hate this attitude. There are plenty of games that have satisfied me on a similar narrative basis as a good movie, but never in the same way. Movies provide a different experience, so, yes, you could say that game stories aren't as good as movies, but if you did you'd be ignoring everything else that makes a game narrative what it is. The structure, the metagame, the visual and aural design, the method of deliverance, the perspective, the design philosophy, the interactivity. These are all examples of the way that games can communicate their narrative outside of the basic plot outline.
Metal Gear, although it makes heavy use of cinematic techniques, still provides a history, a context and a structure that is not attainable in cinema. On that level it succeeds, but if you look at it as just a string of non-interactive cutscenes, of course it can't hold up, because that's not just what the game is, even when discussing the narrative. Movies aren't just about watching stuff happen either, they create a passive experience that is unique to that medium. I won't argue that gaming has attained a general level of quality that is comparable to that of film or literature, but the same concept applies, even in games that derive heavily from other media. You may not like MGS 4's story, and that's perfectly understandable, but I don't believe it fails because it doesn't hold up to movie standards, as that is not its only focus.
Gaming can never evolve as a storytelling platform if people believe that the medium has to conform to film or literature criteria in order to convey successful narratives.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I was originally very disappointed in Civ 4. It's not that I found the game to be bad, it's just that the pace was much different than that of Civ 2, which I poured countless hours into. Now, though, I've learned to adapt and find it hard to play Civ 2, since I'm so used to Civ 4's pacing and extras.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
I hate this attitude. There are plenty of games that have satisfied me on a similar narrative basis as a good movie, but never in the same way. Movies provide a different experience, so, yes, you could say that game stories aren't as good as movies, but if you did you'd be ignoring everything else that makes a game narrative what it is. The structure, the metagame, the visual and aural design, the method of deliverance, the perspective, the design philosophy, the interactivity. These are all examples of the way that games can communicate their narrative outside of the basic plot outline.
Metal Gear, although it makes heavy use of cinematic techniques, still provides a history, a context and a structure that is not attainable in cinema. On that level it succeeds, but if you look at it as just a string of non-interactive cutscenes, of course it can't hold up, because that's not just what the game is, even when discussing the narrative. Movies aren't just about watching stuff happen either, they create a passive experience that is unique to that medium. I won't argue that gaming has attained a general level of quality that is comparable to that of film or literature, but the same concept applies, even in games that derive heavily from other media. You may not like MGS 4's story, and that's perfectly understandable, but I don't believe it fails because it doesn't hold up to movie standards, as that is not its only focus.
Gaming can never evolve as a storytelling platform if people believe that the medium has to conform to film or literature criteria in order to convey successful narratives.
You made a whole lot of assumptions there. Where did I say anything about stories having to conform to a certain criteria in order to be considered good?
I could care less about any criteria. I only care about whether the story is enjoyable or if it makes me feel profoundly about something. MGS4's story was not enjoyable and the only thing it made me feel profoundly was "wow, this story is convoluted and stupid."
You speak as if the whole package is the story. I don't see it that way at all. Even in a movie, it's comprised of more than just the story. I'll enjoy a movie like Ong Bak and I'll say, "the action was good" but I wouldn't say it had a good story. I liked MGS4 too. Good gameplay and cool action in the cutscenes, but the story was retarded.
I was originally very disappointed in Civ 4. It's not that I found the game to be bad, it's just that the pace was much different than that of Civ 2, which I poured countless hours into. Now, though, I've learned to adapt and find it hard to play Civ 2, since I'm so used to Civ 4's pacing and extras.
Even compared to 3, the pacing was different. And while I eventually got used to the difference between 3 and 2, I never really liked the difference between 4 and 3. Also, 4 has worse graphics than 3.
You made a whole lot of assumptions there. Where did I say anything about stories having to conform to a certain criteria in order to be considered good?
Well, wouldn't they have to? You said that no example of game storytelling has ever come close to the quality of movies. I argue that several games already have, but never based solely on any virtue we associate with the medium of film.
I could care less about any criteria. I only care about whether the story is enjoyable or if it makes me feel profoundly about something. MGS4's story was not enjoyable and the only thing it made me feel profoundly was "wow, this story is convoluted and stupid."
Which is fine, but I don't think the perceived quality of the story has anything to do with videogame standards.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Gears of War is great, but the writing hurts my head and makes me ashamed to be spending 8 hours with it.
Mass Effect- Bleh. KOTOR and Jade Empire had great art styles implemented into their environments (JE moreso, but that was a shorter game) This just looks and feels like one long tech demo with a story slapped on.
Assassin's Creed- This is a great game for the first 2 hours. But then those 2 hours kept repeating themselves and there's nothing to speak of in the cities except those panoramic kodak moments. I actually didn't mind the guitar hero combat so much, it's just that the game recycled content way too much.
Dead Rising- Never mind the save system, it just sounded way better on paper.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
I hate this attitude. There are plenty of games that have satisfied me on a similar narrative basis as a good movie, but never in the same way. Movies provide a different experience, so, yes, you could say that game stories aren't as good as movies, but if you did you'd be ignoring everything else that makes a game narrative what it is. The structure, the metagame, the visual and aural design, the method of deliverance, the perspective, the design philosophy, the interactivity. These are all examples of the way that games can communicate their narrative outside of the basic plot outline.
Metal Gear, although it makes heavy use of cinematic techniques, still provides a history, a context and a structure that is not attainable in cinema. On that level it succeeds, but if you look at it as just a string of non-interactive cutscenes, of course it can't hold up, because that's not just what the game is, even when discussing the narrative. Movies aren't just about watching stuff happen either, they create a passive experience that is unique to that medium. I won't argue that gaming has attained a general level of quality that is comparable to that of film or literature, but the same concept applies, even in games that derive heavily from other media. You may not like MGS 4's story, and that's perfectly understandable, but I don't believe it fails because it doesn't hold up to movie standards, as that is not its only focus.
Gaming can never evolve as a storytelling platform if people believe that the medium has to conform to film or literature criteria in order to convey successful narratives.
You made a whole lot of assumptions there. Where did I say anything about stories having to conform to a certain criteria in order to be considered good?
I could care less about any criteria. I only care about whether the story is enjoyable or if it makes me feel profoundly about something. MGS4's story was not enjoyable and the only thing it made me feel profoundly was "wow, this story is convoluted and stupid."
You speak as if the whole package is the story. I don't see it that way at all. Even in a movie, it's comprised of more than just the story. I'll enjoy a movie like Ong Bak and I'll say, "the action was good" but I wouldn't say it had a good story. I liked MGS4 too. Good gameplay and cool action in the cutscenes, but the story was retarded.
The thing is, in other mediums "stories" are heavily drafted, re-drafted and edited.
I don't think most games writing ever sees more than one draft- at least as far as story and character are concerned.
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
I was never a big fan of the GTA series, but I thought Vice City and San Andreas were great fun. For some reason GTA4 never really 'clicked' with me.
It definitely has a different pace than the other GTA's. It's almost more self conscious and designed in a way that encourages the player to look around at the environment as they play. There's way less emphasis on outrageous and crazy stuff. It's like the focus went into making it feel more satisfying to say, shoot someone with a gun.
I mean, seriously. They do something different that isn't space marines in triple-thick body armour, and the environments are brilliantly made.
Environments may as well have been pre-rendered. What's supposed to be an intergalactic advanced city is nothing more than a bunch of connected corridors with pretty setpieces. And most of the rest of the game is set in barren terrain.
Posts
* ALSO not saying that a character HAS to be likable to be interesting, before someone starts nitpicking on that.
Some people don't find her annoying or unlikeable. These are probably the people who like her more than Ezlo or Tatl. She's a prominent character whose intentions and motivations change as the the story progresses. This pretty much automatically places her among the upper echelons of Zelda characters.
Also, I was one of those who did like Midna, because her progression was interesting to me.
Some people here are referring to Midna AS IF she were a work by Proust or Shakespeare or something. That's what's kind of laughable about the whole thing and what irks people like Opium I think. Liking Midna is fine, but keep some perspective. If you say that she had "great characterization" at least follow it up by "for a pretty one-dimensional sidekick in a video game not typically known for its charaterizations" or something similar. Saying that Midna had great characterization period like earlier ITT, as if she were Ulysses or Hamlet or Michael Corleone or something, is just kind of silly.
Perspective.
This is not something that needs to be stated
Got there before I could.
Oh, and Zelda team?
In the next Zelda game, every dungeon has to have meaning, context, a reason to exist and a layout that actually makes sense.
I don't want to pretend the Ooccoos actually built their city that way, I don't want to pretend that the Gorons built a mine in a way that requires the usage of Iron Boots and Bow and I cannot suspend disbelief enough to understand what the fudge that Forest Temple was for. It's not that they suck to play, it's just that they only exist for their own sake. Did hylians create a big-ass temple in order to hide a boomerang, did some ancient civilization do that or do you think stuff like that is too difficult for kids, too boring? Well, tough, man up and realize that you are making things easy for yourselves at the expense of any gamer that isn't pre-pubescent.
Oh, and start caring about mythology and series continuity while you are at it. No introducing light spirits and provinces and new sages and shit because you feel like it. And no more forest-fire-water to get three damn things before it Gets Serious.
Twilight Princess had its moments but nothing felt really deep, challenging or engrossing. Hopefully Miyamoto will come through with his words abot renewal.
I actually don't feel this is terribly important, seeing how (story-wise at least) the best games in the series are actually the spinoffs/sort of standalone stories (MM, LA). But I do agree on your other points. I have good faith that Nintendo can pull it off after playing PH, however.
Well, I still felt it was important that WW gave a holla about OoT, albeit only in passing (but you changed the castle and everything around it entirely Nintendo whyyyyYYYYYYYYYYY!). See, it's not about tying everything together (this ain't the Saw series or whatev) but it is about basic respect and concern from the developer. I mean, if Gears of War 2 suddenly decided that Imulsion never existed in the first place, like pretended it never even featured in the first game, people would have gone bazookas.
You don't have to continue weaving the carpet straight ahead, but please don't turn it into a quilt.
Edit: I perfectly agree that MM blows the competition out of the water. It had one dungeon too little but the balance between dungeon-crawl/plot-progression and freedom/exploration was just right. Oh, and it had death and sadness and love and catatonic worry and cool music and and and... Basically stuff that narrows the demographic even an infinitesimal bit. I wanna see more sack like that in the next Zelda, Nintendo.
More edit: Oh, BTW, anyone else who thought Galaxy's levels were really linear and that most of the stars had pretty dull routes? I mean, there were just all these set-pieces and easily beat bosses and enemies. Too much trial and error, and not enough crazy level design. Oh, and the story. And the toads. Man, fuck them Toads.
There's nothing inherently sad about THAT. The lengths that they will go to prove a point or enforce an opinion are a different thing.
I'll hopefully be the SECOND and last person to respond; no one cares about what the internet thinks of itself. Least of all the internet.
Edit: But dammit!
I find it difficult to see how Galaxy's level design could have been any crazier. Really, what trial and error? Only a few stars required that approach.
I can say that the whole system of more deaths/more 1ups really isn't so stimulating. I much preferred the 64, Sunshine approaches becaus they forced me to actually get better.
Anyway, to me the mario games have always been about physics and wacky playground objects to navigate and tackle. Not races with boos or bosses that Take Three Hits or tiny set-pieces that are small levels of themselves, and not integrated in the larger ones. Balancing around on that ball with a star inside deserved more attention.
I think you're looking at the wrong medium to get what you're after. If you want a good story with continuity and clever twists that actually make sense, you should watch a movie. Even the greatest examples of story telling in videogames pale in comparison to movies. I mean, by videogame standards, some people think MGS4 has a good story. o_O
Also, games are rarely designed in the way you are asking for for a good reason. In zelda, they want you to get a specific item that the upcoming boss is designed around. They then throw a dungeon on top of it.
The closest I've found to what you are asking for is Fallout 3. Everything is kind of scattered about the world as if it were a real world, but then a lot of people miss out on a lot of the content and the individual pieces can't hold as much meaning. Like getting the dog. In a zelda game, the dog would be located near the end of a specific dungeon and once you got him, he would be your best friend for life. But in fallout 3, you could go through the game without even realizing a dog friend existed. And even when you find him, he's not an important piece of the game. He could die and you'd continue the game as if he wasn't there to begin with.
I like zelda and fallout 3, but I understand the reasoning behind both approaches. Also, since when does anything in a videogame have to make sense. I mean, in resident evil, where did they find the architects to design those mansions and police stations.
Why the fuck was Midna being talked about anyways when the motherfucking King of Red Lions exists?
Applesauce. TP's biggest crowning achievement was that mansion dungeon, because it actually was built in such a way as to have purpose beyond a shell constructed around a specific artifact. And in Wind Waker, at least, most of the dungeons literally were shells constructed around an artifact - they were built to guard the thing or, in some cases, the boss. Twilight Princess got that right with some dungeons, and got it REALLY right with the mansion, but on more than one occasion, like in the mines, it tried to synthesize the two and fell flat on its face.
TP defenders weird me out because they seem to laud the game while admitting that their praise is the result of lower standards. Midna, for example, isn't well-written by any standard, she's just written. She starts off with an unwholesome character quirk, that quirk's motivation is explained and then cast aside by way of character development - it's the most basic trick in the book. If anything, she's interesting because she's part of a logical progression in Zelda's "helper" characters: Navi was basically a blank slate; Tatl had a layer of snark on Navi's template; the Red King had both a personality and an added origin story; and Midna had a bit of character development sprinkled on the Red King's evolution. There's nothing wrong with Midna, but saying she's well-written just exposes one as the type for whom this game was developed - like someone else said, it's one of the most concessionary games I've played - and was chomping at the bit to praise it from the word "go."
Also, the game is undeniably weaker as far as the NPC's are concerned. In Majora's Mask and especially Wind Waker, nearly every character was immediately recognizable from the other, from their personality to their silhouette (and WW flaunted it too, just look at their little statuette quest). TP tried to do that, but blew its load on the bomb-maker and his family (and the yetis, though they got tons of screentime and the probably helped) and the others just felt forced or underused. NPC's like the bug princess and the band of adventurers had peripheral roles at best and their character designs just screamed "look how unique they are from everyone else" whereas WW could get the same effect just from widening the hips and fiddling with their color palette (the cel-shading helped a lot there). TP is just weak tea in so many places that you have to shut your eyes and plug your ears to praise it as the end-all-be-all like you logically could with every one of its predecessors. The only parts I feel comfortable praising are the mansion and the fact that they basically made this iteration of Ganon into an olde-worlde Terminator.
"the fact that they basically made this iteration of Ganon into an olde-worlde Terminator."
Couldn't agree more. Dude starts of as a demon pig who laughs at you on the game over screen, then becomes a tall muscular guy in a bad-ass get-up who rules over a bunch of hot tanned amazons and now he doesn't even fall over
https://medium.com/@alascii
I was never a big fan of the GTA series, but I thought Vice City and San Andreas were great fun. For some reason GTA4 never really 'clicked' with me.
I hate this attitude. There are plenty of games that have satisfied me on a similar narrative basis as a good movie, but never in the same way. Movies provide a different experience, so, yes, you could say that game stories aren't as good as movies, but if you did you'd be ignoring everything else that makes a game narrative what it is. The structure, the metagame, the visual and aural design, the method of deliverance, the perspective, the design philosophy, the interactivity. These are all examples of the way that games can communicate their narrative outside of the basic plot outline.
Metal Gear, although it makes heavy use of cinematic techniques, still provides a history, a context and a structure that is not attainable in cinema. On that level it succeeds, but if you look at it as just a string of non-interactive cutscenes, of course it can't hold up, because that's not just what the game is, even when discussing the narrative. Movies aren't just about watching stuff happen either, they create a passive experience that is unique to that medium. I won't argue that gaming has attained a general level of quality that is comparable to that of film or literature, but the same concept applies, even in games that derive heavily from other media. You may not like MGS 4's story, and that's perfectly understandable, but I don't believe it fails because it doesn't hold up to movie standards, as that is not its only focus.
Gaming can never evolve as a storytelling platform if people believe that the medium has to conform to film or literature criteria in order to convey successful narratives.
You made a whole lot of assumptions there. Where did I say anything about stories having to conform to a certain criteria in order to be considered good?
I could care less about any criteria. I only care about whether the story is enjoyable or if it makes me feel profoundly about something. MGS4's story was not enjoyable and the only thing it made me feel profoundly was "wow, this story is convoluted and stupid."
You speak as if the whole package is the story. I don't see it that way at all. Even in a movie, it's comprised of more than just the story. I'll enjoy a movie like Ong Bak and I'll say, "the action was good" but I wouldn't say it had a good story. I liked MGS4 too. Good gameplay and cool action in the cutscenes, but the story was retarded.
Even compared to 3, the pacing was different. And while I eventually got used to the difference between 3 and 2, I never really liked the difference between 4 and 3. Also, 4 has worse graphics than 3.
But whatever, 4's still fun.
Well, wouldn't they have to? You said that no example of game storytelling has ever come close to the quality of movies. I argue that several games already have, but never based solely on any virtue we associate with the medium of film.
Which is fine, but I don't think the perceived quality of the story has anything to do with videogame standards.
Mass Effect- Bleh. KOTOR and Jade Empire had great art styles implemented into their environments (JE moreso, but that was a shorter game) This just looks and feels like one long tech demo with a story slapped on.
Assassin's Creed- This is a great game for the first 2 hours. But then those 2 hours kept repeating themselves and there's nothing to speak of in the cities except those panoramic kodak moments. I actually didn't mind the guitar hero combat so much, it's just that the game recycled content way too much.
Dead Rising- Never mind the save system, it just sounded way better on paper.
The thing is, in other mediums "stories" are heavily drafted, re-drafted and edited.
I don't think most games writing ever sees more than one draft- at least as far as story and character are concerned.
I mean, seriously. They do something different that isn't space marines in triple-thick body armour, and the environments are brilliantly made.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
It definitely has a different pace than the other GTA's. It's almost more self conscious and designed in a way that encourages the player to look around at the environment as they play. There's way less emphasis on outrageous and crazy stuff. It's like the focus went into making it feel more satisfying to say, shoot someone with a gun.
Yeah, there are some issues with Mass Effect, but visuals and visual style aren't one of them...
Environments may as well have been pre-rendered. What's supposed to be an intergalactic advanced city is nothing more than a bunch of connected corridors with pretty setpieces. And most of the rest of the game is set in barren terrain.
http://masseffected.pbwiki.com/f/masseffect_62_745x440.jpg