No, it's either set up so it works for all, or it's flawed in design fundamentally, especially such a big part of the game, like THE ENDING.
I didn't even figure it out until later that "oh, the ending works if I cared about her". The ending was just idiotic, because I had no qualms about leaving it all be and going away. The fact the game forces me to do otherwise is some weak shit, and we can argue this forever, but the bottom line is, it has to function fundamentally in a logical sense for it to be a proper storytelling technique, and it just simply wasn't.
SoT on the other hand, worked on many more levels, and the new PoP is some simplified watered down version by comparison.
No, it's either set up so it works for all, or it's flawed in design fundamentally, especially such a big part of the game, like THE ENDING.
I didn't even figure it out until later that "oh, the ending works if I cared about her". The ending was just idiotic, because I had no qualms about leaving it all be and going away. The fact the game forces me to do otherwise is some weak shit, and we can argue this forever, but the bottom line is, it has to function fundamentally in a logical sense for it to be a proper storytelling technique, and it just simply wasn't.
SoT on the other hand, worked on many more levels, and the new PoP is some simplified watered down version by comparison.
The game does not force you to do anything. Why the hell do you think the credits started rolling? Because that was the end if you didn't care about her.
There was no cutscene. You did not just sit there and watch it unfold in an unsatisfying manner. The developers clearly gave you control for a reason.
If there was ever a strawman argument, that must be the one.
Ending means being booted back to the main menu after having experienced the content fully.
Also, the credits started rolling, because I was forced to walk out instead of being able to run. It was their idea of making sure everyone stuck through the credits instead of hitting escape or just walking out of the room while they finished.
BlackDove, you are not the final fucking arbiter of taste for this or any other game. People liked the new PoP just fine and agreeing with some mook in a YouTube video does not automatically make everybody else wrong.
The fighting was nothing to bitch about: I enjoyed not being invincible. Challenge.
The story isn't nearly as bad as everyone says it is. You want a bad story? Go talk to George Lucas. Mirrors Edge is guilty of having only a simplistic, cookie-cutter story.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Mirror's edge is guilty of not going into more depth with the story. It could have been a lot better if you had just started off doing simple delivery missions, you were given reasons to care for characters and they had done it a bit slower.
The story isn't terrible when you don't think about how they revealed it, even if it was simplistic and cookie cutter.
Mirror's edge is guilty of not going into more depth with the story. It could have been a lot better if you had just started off doing simple delivery missions, you were given reasons to care for characters and they had done it a bit slower.
The story isn't terrible when you don't think about how they revealed it, even if it was simplistic and cookie cutter.
You could have both extended the game's extremely short playthrough, put some meat to the background of the runners themselves, and filled it in with story-related material that made it more meaty just by doing that.
Mirror's edge is guilty of not going into more depth with the story. It could have been a lot better if you had just started off doing simple delivery missions, you were given reasons to care for characters and they had done it a bit slower.
The story isn't terrible when you don't think about how they revealed it, even if it was simplistic and cookie cutter.
You could have both extended the game's extremely short playthrough, put some meat to the background of the runners themselves, and filled it in with story-related material that made it more meaty just by doing that.
And they didn't bother. :x
I can agree with all of this. Dystopian future societies (well, not that far in the future) strike a romantic chord with me. I felt like they could have really developed the setting more, maybe talk about particular atrocities outside of Faith's personal life.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Aye. They had a really interesting potential culture with the runners that they absolutely failed to explore.
It gets worse in that you see that they were slightly exploring it when you see the things written/left near the hidden bags, but then realize that's about it.
My biggest complaint right now is the chapter two speed run. All of the pieces are accomplishable individually, but stringing it all together...
Fuck you so hard, Jacknife. Fuck yoooou.
You are aware that the middle pipe at the end has essentially zero collision, right? I doubt that's the only problem, but that piece of shit pipe cost me more runs than I'd care to remember.
Do a YouTube search for the speedruns. If you're on a console, try to view the ones made by the PS3 player. Take notes and try and emulate as much of that as you can.
Aye. They had a really interesting potential culture with the runners that they absolutely failed to explore.
It gets worse in that you see that they were slightly exploring it when you see the things written/left near the hidden bags, but then realize that's about it.
What ultimately disappointed me about the story was that there was one. At least, I was expecting more 'on the job' stuff than the first mission. After that the game was suddenly 'let us send para-military squads with heavy weaponry to shoot up the city whilst chasing after a young, unarmed woman'.
Clearly the November Riots really quelled any thoughts of dissent if the citizenry take such events with perfect aplomb. That, or they're used to Matrix Agent style peace enforcement...
BlackDove, you are not the final fucking arbiter of taste for this or any other game. People liked the new PoP just fine and agreeing with some mook in a YouTube video does not automatically make everybody else wrong.
Nor was I implying I was any arbiter of taste. If you've got some problems with the way things work, that's not really any of my concern. The fact that people like the game is all well and good, but the reason others don't shows evident flaws in the construct of the work, which are quite apparent once we deconstruct it.
The inability to see it isn't my shortcoming, it is yours. Don't invert things.
Fact remains that poor techniques and assumptive conditions as key elements of a game narrative is, as proven, a horrible idea.
Basing the entire structure of the resolution of a game on the assumption that the consumer would meet any conditions of pre-imagined emotional responses such as empathy (in this particular case) for the characters or any other bonding emotion is, obviously, not the way to go when building a narrative.
To take that to the topic; Mirror's Edge at the very least doesn't try to build its resolution on making it appear as if you've ever had a say in the matter. The moment Faith's sister is imprisoned, even if you don't give a shit about her (which is likely no one did for reasons mentioned in that video) the course is set and you will keep going knowing full well what it is that needs to be done, putting all your efforts into reaching that objective, whether you give a damn about accomplishing it or not.
While that system has its flaws, I'll fully well take it over the disconnect between protagonist and player which ultimately as we've seen with PoP, manages to completely ruin the experience if the player and the protagonist are not on the same page by the end.
BlackDove on
0
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
edited June 2009
So, are the custom maps or mods or anything like that for the PC version? I just finished it, but the last few ridiculously hard levels left a sour taste in my mouth.
BlackDove, you are not the final fucking arbiter of taste for this or any other game. People liked the new PoP just fine and agreeing with some mook in a YouTube video does not automatically make everybody else wrong.
Nor was I implying I was any arbiter of taste. If you've got some problems with the way things work, that's not really any of my concern. The fact that people like the game is all well and good, but the reason others don't shows evident flaws in the construct of the work, which are quite apparent once we deconstruct it.
The inability to see it isn't my shortcoming, it is yours. Don't invert things.
Fact remains that poor techniques and assumptive conditions as key elements of a game narrative is, as proven, a horrible idea.
Basing the entire structure of the resolution of a game on the assumption that the consumer would meet any conditions of pre-imagined emotional responses such as empathy (in this particular case) for the characters or any other bonding emotion is, obviously, not the way to go when building a narrative.
To take that to the topic; Mirror's Edge at the very least doesn't try to build its resolution on making it appear as if you've ever had a say in the matter. The moment Faith's sister is imprisoned, even if you don't give a shit about her (which is likely no one did for reasons mentioned in that video) the course is set and you will keep going knowing full well what it is that needs to be done, putting all your efforts into reaching that objective, whether you give a damn about accomplishing it or not.
While that system has its flaws, I'll fully well take it over the disconnect between protagonist and player which ultimately as we've seen with PoP, manages to completely ruin the experience if the player and the protagonist are not on the same page by the end.
I can quite easily falsify the statement that because the ending didn't work for some people, it was flawed.
I like sad endings. My father does not. QED.
The responses were there for some people, and just because your pre-conditioned gamer brain knew that you had to continue to do stuff... well you could quite easily have chosen to leave it and not realised that, if you weren't so much of a gamer.
There were flaws in it, I'll be the first to admit that. But the idea that just because you didn't feel anything doesn't mean those flaws are as overbearing as you claim.
ME was obviously trying to be a lot more pretentious than PoP and missed the mark. PoP hit the mark, but not quite as well as SoT.
But the silent protagonist makes for good pure gameplay. If you have a silent protagonist you can't spend much time plot-building. As Faith was silent outside of cutscenes for the most part... yeah. She was never going to work. I much prefer a tried and failed approach to making the PC seperate to me, than even a gordon freeman approach. But at least HL games are fun as hell gameplay-wise, and the other characters succeed on their own merits, rather than through relationships with the PC, or player.
You can choose to view the glass as half full all you want, the fact remains it's still half empty.
"Overbearing" isn't a statement of fact. Statement of fact is that the game suffers because of poor choices made during the constructions of the narrative. Period.
This isn't about likes or dislikes of a subjective analysis of the work. Nobody gives a shit about what you or I or your dad likes. It's the fact that the work HINGES on you liking something, and if you dislike it or more accurately, if you're ambivalent towards it (like many were to Elika, they just didn't give two shits about her, live or die) the entire narrative falls apart like a house of cards. Those of us who were perfectly fine
leaving Elika dead and thus, legitimizing the entirety of the duration of the game where you fought to subdue and lock away Arhiman, now had to suffer all of it being undone because of an issue that we disagree with, and would not do ourselves.
If PoP was a movie, it would work perfectly, because we would understand that the Prince cares for her, and he undoes all his work because he loves her, blah blah blah, and while that still stands, the fact remains it wasn't the Prince that did anything, it was the player, the active motion behind everything the prince does that carried out everything, making the player part of the process of the entire game, which is the whole point of games. Once that is invalidated, and that synergy is broken, when the protagonist disjoins from the player and the player is forced to do things for the sake of the protagonist, you're left with a game that obviously did something wrong. Apparently even though I have the power to control the protagonist, it turns out I don't, and the extent of my power is to just see through what the protagonist wants to do instead of what I want to do with him, when apparently the period of choice is at hand, as in, at any time I could have walked the fuck out of the canyon never to return, and I had the option of doing that, except I didn't because of invisible walls. This is bad and horrid gameplay 101.
The Metal Gear Solid franchise practically suffered the most from it, when in the sequel, a sequel that intimated one would be playing the favored protagonist from the first game, and all promotional material for the game featuring that protagonist, with the game being a "2", a sequel, promising all the while more of the same, it ends up you are forced to play Raiden, a character worlds apart from Solid Snake, one you are likely NOT to like if you liked the first one, breaking the player/protagonist relationship, which is why legions of people quit the franchise right then and there. While the brilliance of the work was just that, testing that bond in ways that it's never been tested before (which makes it one of my favorite games), the fact is that I admit and acknowledge why massive amounts of people would be dissatisfied and quit, and poorly review the game.
Same thing with PoP. I actually believe if that final piece was turned into a cutscene, where the game doesn't force you to do the things that you don't want to do, if it was "out of your hands" and it turned into a movie, where you're just the silent observer instead of the active mediator, the game would've been just fine as a narrative. While I do not dispute it was awesome for those that wanted to make the choice the game forces the player to do, it was just as deal breaking for those that didn't. It's the fact that they wanted to play with that which makes it or breaks it, and in many cases while it may make it, for the rest it breaks it.
Mirrors Edge, as an example of the most linear kind of gameplay imaginable (just as HL2 is, which you mentioned) has no such breaking of player/protagonist. It is always necessitated that you assume the first person view of the protagonist and your actions lead to performing the actions that are in both of your interests. There is never a choice which has two paths where you're forced to choose one, making it the unchoice. Most games don't come with that feature for a reason. It's because it makes for horrid gameplay for a select portion of the consumers.
Also the "you can choose to stop playing" argument is total idiocy, please never mention it again. Yes, we can all turn off the game if we don't like it (or even better, when we feel content that it's done instead of when it's actually done? [Jesus.]). The argument is inane.
You realise that whole argument, that huge essay you just typed out, can be summarised by simply saying "I don't like being made to do something for my character and that makes it wrong. also, you're stupid"
I'm not disputing you didn't like it. But I liked being forced to do the thing that my character would do. I thought it was a truly brilliant ending to the game.
You don't have to. I don't really get what's half empty and half full. No narrative choice will satisfy every single recipient. So it's not wrong if some people thought it was a great end. It's just wrong in your eyes. So your idea that the job is to get it half full? The fullness of the glass depends entirely on the observer.
Nothing is ever perfect, and nothing is even universally good. That does not mean that it is in some way intrinsically wrong.
Which aren't perfect. To lambast multiple people for enjoying an ending to a game with such vitriol is honestly a little eyebrow-raising.
No, that's not how it can be summarized, because that's not the only thing I've said. I've written some far more important things in addition to that. Whether you don't see them or don't want to see them doesn't interest me though, that's your problem.
Part of it was that, yes, it was wrong for people to think that PoP's ending was "great" (and why). It might be super fine from a subjective "I liked it" point of view, which I totally agree with, but not from an objective view when you deconstruct its function. Those who didn't like the ending subjectively, like me, just seem to have an easier time seeing how it's flawed, and where it ultimately fails when taking THE WHOLE consumer base into account, not just the people that liked that facet or disliked it.
But that's only one aspect of why the game was trash, if you really want to talk about how "great" the game was. The gameplay was a watered down quick-time event so that whoever is playing it needs to put no real effort into progressing through it, and then the lightseed collecting and backtracking for an arbitrary number of "here dog, fetch" seeds and stars was just downright uninventive and insulting if nothing else. Artistic direction was just about the only thing that was good Even the interaction between the two only characters was done in such a way as to be optional in order to pray chance not burden the precious consumer that doesn't want to deal with it. Not only that, the story was also fairly basic "ooh dark vs. light big bad dark monster, last Cetra/Ancient/Elika left to defeat the evil, and some very stupid allusions to religion (Ormazd etc. I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE) and generally a game made to look like much more than what it is; a fairly shallow quick time event made to waste your time by hunting biscuits like a dog by backtracking and acrobattin' through the places you've already been in, "IN AN OPEN WORLD".
Mirror's Edge was really the polar opposite. It requires a significant amount of skill, motor or otherwise, to get through, and is unforgiving in its presentation, having been judged poorly by a large majority because of not being as open and welcoming as say, PoP was. The story was drivel, but the GAME aspect was largely fantastic, as was the visual style and direction of it (if for any other reason, just because it was fresh, which also is the only redeeming quality of PoP).
The reason I prefer the execution of a Mirror's Edge like game, is the fact that while it's problematic because it requires a certain amount of skill, and while the vast majority that disliked it/rated it poorly because of that is justified, the fact remains that by picking up the slack on AN INDIVIDUAL'S end, the product improves accordingly.
With PoP it doesn't matter whether you're a god amongst gamers, or a two year old child, the game remains equally abhorrent even though both can equally get through it without any significant problem.
You can never take THE WHOLE consumer base into account. I really don't understand that as a complaint. The fact that very few people will ever invest the time into the game to reach that point weakens it even further. It seems to me it was not meant to be universally liked.
And actually, just because gameplay's simple doesn't mean it's crap, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's crap. It was incredibly relaxing, absolutely gorgeous, and interesting to listen to the conversation. I can appreciate DMC's sublime gameplay, but i can also appreciate this. It was relaxing in a time I needed something to relax with., so maybe I'm a little biased.
The story wasn't anything amazing in itself, but the story was never about anything but the prince.
ME requires skill, but got an incredibly frustrating aspect in its good gameplay, namely combat. Which was shit. In my opinion. Those who are gods at it may disagree. It always struck me the game would be far better just being a series of seperate challenge levels.
But ME and PoP are quite odd to compare, seeing as they were never really anything to do with one another. Cool, you prefer ME, but I am not wrong to prefer PoP, which you seem to feel vehemently that I am. It's entirely subjective. And that goes double for the ending.
The very fact that we are having this argument means I am right. It's not a flaw to only be liked by a subset.
Mirrors Edge, as an example of the most linear kind of gameplay imaginable (just as HL2 is, which you mentioned) has no such breaking of player/protagonist. It is always necessitated that you assume the first person view of the protagonist and your actions lead to performing the actions that are in both of your interests. There is never a choice which has two paths where you're forced to choose one, making it the unchoice. Most games don't come with that feature for a reason. It's because it makes for horrid gameplay for a select portion of the consumers.
You know Warren Spector and Gabe Newell have an endless argument going about this very thing. Obviously Gabe prefers a linear exp and Warren likes a lot of branching paths. Gabes point being if you are going to take the time and expense to generate content wouldn’t you want all of your customers to see it? I sit somewhere in the middle. I really think Starbreeze has the narrative in a game thing figured out. There is a very tightly put together story in their games, at least Riddick and The Darkness, with a lot of little choices along the way that allow the player to put their own twist on the experience without to radically changing the game or missing a lot of content.
And just in general Black Dove while I enjoy most of your posts, you do have tendency to come off as thinking your opinion is the only right one. While the story in Mirrors Edge will never be one of my favorites it hardly ruined the game for me. It was just a nice backdrop for some sweet gameplay.
You can never take THE WHOLE consumer base into account. I really don't understand that as a complaint. The fact that very few people will ever invest the time into the game to reach that point weakens it even further. It seems to me it was not meant to be universally liked.
And actually, just because gameplay's simple doesn't mean it's crap, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's crap. It was incredibly relaxing, absolutely gorgeous, and interesting to listen to the conversation. I can appreciate DMC's sublime gameplay, but i can also appreciate this. It was relaxing in a time I needed something to relax with., so maybe I'm a little biased.
The story wasn't anything amazing in itself, but the story was never about anything but the prince.
ME requires skill, but got an incredibly frustrating aspect in its good gameplay, namely combat. Which was shit. In my opinion. Those who are gods at it may disagree. It always struck me the game would be far better just being a series of seperate challenge levels.
But ME and PoP are quite odd to compare, seeing as they were never really anything to do with one another. Cool, you prefer ME, but I am not wrong to prefer PoP, which you seem to feel vehemently that I am. It's entirely subjective. And that goes double for the ending.
The very fact that we are having this argument means I am right. It's not a flaw to only be liked by a subset.
No, no. You're totally right to like PoP to be your favorite game of forever if you so choose to. What you like is your own thing.
It's just when you bring it to me in an open forum is where I can't help but point out reasoning, which simply doesn't work in your favor no matter how much you may want it to. "Relaxing gameplay because I need to relax" and "The story wasn't amazing but the story was never about anything but the prince" (????) just don't stand up as fantastic arguments for the showcase of how the game is "great".
I think you're right though.
It was not meant to be universally liked.
They should put that on their website as a big splash screen. Perhaps better worded, it should go like this:
This game is average at best. You may not like it, it's not meant to be universally liked. Click here to buy now.
Mirrors Edge, as an example of the most linear kind of gameplay imaginable (just as HL2 is, which you mentioned) has no such breaking of player/protagonist. It is always necessitated that you assume the first person view of the protagonist and your actions lead to performing the actions that are in both of your interests. There is never a choice which has two paths where you're forced to choose one, making it the unchoice. Most games don't come with that feature for a reason. It's because it makes for horrid gameplay for a select portion of the consumers.
You know Warren Spector and Gabe Newell have an endless argument going about this very thing. Obviously Gabe prefers a linear exp and Warren likes a lot of branching paths. Gabes point being if you are going to take the time and expense to generate content wouldn’t you want all of your customers to see it? I sit somewhere in the middle. I really think Starbreeze has the narrative in a game thing figured out. There is a very tightly put together story in their games, at least Riddick and The Darkness, with a lot of little choices along the way that allow the player to put their own twist on the experience without to radically changing the game or missing a lot of content.
And just in general Black Dove while I enjoy most of your posts, you do have tendency to come off as thinking your opinion is the only right one. While the story in Mirrors Edge will never be one of my favorites it hardly ruined the game for me. It was just a nice backdrop for some sweet gameplay.
Yeah, same for me. While I judge very harshly HL2 and such FPS linear games such as ME, even say CoD4, I can't deny I don't enjoy them when I play them.
However, there's a lot to be said for the open ended games and the... potential shall we say, that they provide. Note a good example here is PoP which I think we've discussed in this thread (I don't remember) which simply outright lied about being "Open World", but that is perhaps because we're still trying to find the middle ground maybe, and not so much of the "HEY, THIS /SEEMS/ LIKE OPEN WORLD, LET'S LIE TO THEM". But once it's released, it's fairly obvious what the nature of the animal is.
Far as storytelling goes, I am more of the persuasion that linear is used when you lack the skill to do it in a bigger way. Which is why I think the linear games are always trying to do it more open, more "choice" based. Like for example, Modern Warfare 2, that E3 video in the snow base - contrasting it with the first MW you're given a pretty big area to toy around with until you actually have to go and do your objectives. Same with Mirror's Edge, the intonation was and is "you can go about completing the level any way you like", which was also a marketing lie before they released it because the biggest "choice" you had was taking the boxes on the left or boxes on the right, before you go to the crane and jump off it.
I enjoy them linear and expansive since I see them as two different animals. Both have good showcases and bad, they can be fantastic or fail miserably. Ideally I'd like to see an age that combines them and makes them the same, but that means entirely different architectures and engines. Crysis was trying to do something there, that engine has some big potential, Far Cry 2 as well, those vast expanses, yet they were still more or less treated as linear experiences when push came to shove.
We have Fallout 3 say as an FPS in a big open world, that's an attempt at trying to bridge the gap. An adamant attempt with a lot of good content, though there are glaring shortcomings to such an endeavor, and it is a behemoth of an endeavor as it appears. I mean the sewers alone... I mean subways... you need to do that kind of copy pasting still. It's not easy to do it both at the same time. Shootan' aspects were off as well.
Same as you, even though I thought that ME's story was pretty trashy, I still enjoyed myself quite a bit because of the gameplay and its visual fidelity first and foremost.
Seriously? you think every game is meant to be universally liked?
Why do you think there is such a thing as a target audience?
A game that helps me relax in a time I want to relax is a GOOD thing in my eyes. It gives me an opportunity that a lot of games don't. How exactly is that a flaw?
And the whole religion allusion thing is unimportant because that's only a backdrop for a story about a dude, was the only point I was making.
Fuck it, I'm not even arguing that the game is great, I'm just arguing that just because you view the ending to be bad, and you viewing the gameplay as poor does not mean they fucked up. It may mean that, but it might also mean it's not for you.
I really don't care enough to keep responding. You are just repeating "ME NO LIKE, GAME MUST BEEN BORKED" over and over again, with no reasoning as to why only your view can be correct.
Target audience I believe applies to subject matter. Not so much to shittyness of execution.
I also state my reasons as to why I think my view is correct. I don't have any objections to you proving my view is incorrect. But you have to do more than just the "I have a different view, so since there are multiple views, your view is incorrect".
I gave thorough reasons as to why I thought PoP is shit and why its ending is shit both from a personal perspective and from an objective perspective based on judging the elements.
While I do totally agree you're entitled to your view, I'm not making any concessions to mine being the dominant one until you manage to assassinate it. I know it comes off as hostile, and I'm sorry if that offends you, I apologize for that.
But you're the one that seems to be taking the game to heart as your own personal relative that has an honor which must be defended at all costs.
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
What's really ridiculous is that he was doing the jump completely incorrectly, you are supposed to wall run on the wall to his right, turn and jump (at least that's what I did and it took me about 8 seconds to figure out)
(also I completely agree with Lewie P about PoP, I played it purely for the story and the story only as the gameplay itself was shit)
Posts
I didn't even figure it out until later that "oh, the ending works if I cared about her". The ending was just idiotic, because I had no qualms about leaving it all be and going away. The fact the game forces me to do otherwise is some weak shit, and we can argue this forever, but the bottom line is, it has to function fundamentally in a logical sense for it to be a proper storytelling technique, and it just simply wasn't.
SoT on the other hand, worked on many more levels, and the new PoP is some simplified watered down version by comparison.
The game does not force you to do anything. Why the hell do you think the credits started rolling? Because that was the end if you didn't care about her.
There was no cutscene. You did not just sit there and watch it unfold in an unsatisfying manner. The developers clearly gave you control for a reason.
Ending means being booted back to the main menu after having experienced the content fully.
Also, the credits started rolling, because I was forced to walk out instead of being able to run. It was their idea of making sure everyone stuck through the credits instead of hitting escape or just walking out of the room while they finished.
Just. Why the fuck am I arguing this? Just no.
I KISS YOU!
Not to mention the enemies are partly what makes the game fun.
The story isn't nearly as bad as everyone says it is. You want a bad story? Go talk to George Lucas. Mirrors Edge is guilty of having only a simplistic, cookie-cutter story.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The story isn't terrible when you don't think about how they revealed it, even if it was simplistic and cookie cutter.
Steam // Secret Satan
Fuck you so hard, Jacknife. Fuck yoooou.
You could have both extended the game's extremely short playthrough, put some meat to the background of the runners themselves, and filled it in with story-related material that made it more meaty just by doing that.
And they didn't bother. :x
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I can agree with all of this. Dystopian future societies (well, not that far in the future) strike a romantic chord with me. I felt like they could have really developed the setting more, maybe talk about particular atrocities outside of Faith's personal life.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
It gets worse in that you see that they were slightly exploring it when you see the things written/left near the hidden bags, but then realize that's about it.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You are aware that the middle pipe at the end has essentially zero collision, right? I doubt that's the only problem, but that piece of shit pipe cost me more runs than I'd care to remember.
Do a YouTube search for the speedruns. If you're on a console, try to view the ones made by the PS3 player. Take notes and try and emulate as much of that as you can.
What ultimately disappointed me about the story was that there was one. At least, I was expecting more 'on the job' stuff than the first mission. After that the game was suddenly 'let us send para-military squads with heavy weaponry to shoot up the city whilst chasing after a young, unarmed woman'.
Clearly the November Riots really quelled any thoughts of dissent if the citizenry take such events with perfect aplomb. That, or they're used to Matrix Agent style peace enforcement...
Nor was I implying I was any arbiter of taste. If you've got some problems with the way things work, that's not really any of my concern. The fact that people like the game is all well and good, but the reason others don't shows evident flaws in the construct of the work, which are quite apparent once we deconstruct it.
The inability to see it isn't my shortcoming, it is yours. Don't invert things.
Fact remains that poor techniques and assumptive conditions as key elements of a game narrative is, as proven, a horrible idea.
Basing the entire structure of the resolution of a game on the assumption that the consumer would meet any conditions of pre-imagined emotional responses such as empathy (in this particular case) for the characters or any other bonding emotion is, obviously, not the way to go when building a narrative.
To take that to the topic; Mirror's Edge at the very least doesn't try to build its resolution on making it appear as if you've ever had a say in the matter. The moment Faith's sister is imprisoned, even if you don't give a shit about her (which is likely no one did for reasons mentioned in that video) the course is set and you will keep going knowing full well what it is that needs to be done, putting all your efforts into reaching that objective, whether you give a damn about accomplishing it or not.
While that system has its flaws, I'll fully well take it over the disconnect between protagonist and player which ultimately as we've seen with PoP, manages to completely ruin the experience if the player and the protagonist are not on the same page by the end.
I can quite easily falsify the statement that because the ending didn't work for some people, it was flawed.
I like sad endings. My father does not. QED.
The responses were there for some people, and just because your pre-conditioned gamer brain knew that you had to continue to do stuff... well you could quite easily have chosen to leave it and not realised that, if you weren't so much of a gamer.
There were flaws in it, I'll be the first to admit that. But the idea that just because you didn't feel anything doesn't mean those flaws are as overbearing as you claim.
ME was obviously trying to be a lot more pretentious than PoP and missed the mark. PoP hit the mark, but not quite as well as SoT.
But the silent protagonist makes for good pure gameplay. If you have a silent protagonist you can't spend much time plot-building. As Faith was silent outside of cutscenes for the most part... yeah. She was never going to work. I much prefer a tried and failed approach to making the PC seperate to me, than even a gordon freeman approach. But at least HL games are fun as hell gameplay-wise, and the other characters succeed on their own merits, rather than through relationships with the PC, or player.
The job is to have the WHOLE GLASS FULL.
You can choose to view the glass as half full all you want, the fact remains it's still half empty.
"Overbearing" isn't a statement of fact. Statement of fact is that the game suffers because of poor choices made during the constructions of the narrative. Period.
This isn't about likes or dislikes of a subjective analysis of the work. Nobody gives a shit about what you or I or your dad likes. It's the fact that the work HINGES on you liking something, and if you dislike it or more accurately, if you're ambivalent towards it (like many were to Elika, they just didn't give two shits about her, live or die) the entire narrative falls apart like a house of cards. Those of us who were perfectly fine
If PoP was a movie, it would work perfectly, because we would understand that the Prince cares for her, and he undoes all his work because he loves her, blah blah blah, and while that still stands, the fact remains it wasn't the Prince that did anything, it was the player, the active motion behind everything the prince does that carried out everything, making the player part of the process of the entire game, which is the whole point of games. Once that is invalidated, and that synergy is broken, when the protagonist disjoins from the player and the player is forced to do things for the sake of the protagonist, you're left with a game that obviously did something wrong. Apparently even though I have the power to control the protagonist, it turns out I don't, and the extent of my power is to just see through what the protagonist wants to do instead of what I want to do with him, when apparently the period of choice is at hand, as in, at any time I could have walked the fuck out of the canyon never to return, and I had the option of doing that, except I didn't because of invisible walls. This is bad and horrid gameplay 101.
The Metal Gear Solid franchise practically suffered the most from it, when in the sequel, a sequel that intimated one would be playing the favored protagonist from the first game, and all promotional material for the game featuring that protagonist, with the game being a "2", a sequel, promising all the while more of the same, it ends up you are forced to play Raiden, a character worlds apart from Solid Snake, one you are likely NOT to like if you liked the first one, breaking the player/protagonist relationship, which is why legions of people quit the franchise right then and there. While the brilliance of the work was just that, testing that bond in ways that it's never been tested before (which makes it one of my favorite games), the fact is that I admit and acknowledge why massive amounts of people would be dissatisfied and quit, and poorly review the game.
Same thing with PoP. I actually believe if that final piece was turned into a cutscene, where the game doesn't force you to do the things that you don't want to do, if it was "out of your hands" and it turned into a movie, where you're just the silent observer instead of the active mediator, the game would've been just fine as a narrative. While I do not dispute it was awesome for those that wanted to make the choice the game forces the player to do, it was just as deal breaking for those that didn't. It's the fact that they wanted to play with that which makes it or breaks it, and in many cases while it may make it, for the rest it breaks it.
Mirrors Edge, as an example of the most linear kind of gameplay imaginable (just as HL2 is, which you mentioned) has no such breaking of player/protagonist. It is always necessitated that you assume the first person view of the protagonist and your actions lead to performing the actions that are in both of your interests. There is never a choice which has two paths where you're forced to choose one, making it the unchoice. Most games don't come with that feature for a reason. It's because it makes for horrid gameplay for a select portion of the consumers.
Also the "you can choose to stop playing" argument is total idiocy, please never mention it again. Yes, we can all turn off the game if we don't like it (or even better, when we feel content that it's done instead of when it's actually done? [Jesus.]). The argument is inane.
almost all the character introductions are in media res, and Mono doesn't have any introduction or development at all, yet
is one of the most powerful parts of an already powerful ending
I thoroughly enjoyed the game - never cared about the characters once.
I'm not disputing you didn't like it. But I liked being forced to do the thing that my character would do. I thought it was a truly brilliant ending to the game.
You don't have to. I don't really get what's half empty and half full. No narrative choice will satisfy every single recipient. So it's not wrong if some people thought it was a great end. It's just wrong in your eyes. So your idea that the job is to get it half full? The fullness of the glass depends entirely on the observer.
Nothing is ever perfect, and nothing is even universally good. That does not mean that it is in some way intrinsically wrong.
Which aren't perfect. To lambast multiple people for enjoying an ending to a game with such vitriol is honestly a little eyebrow-raising.
Part of it was that, yes, it was wrong for people to think that PoP's ending was "great" (and why). It might be super fine from a subjective "I liked it" point of view, which I totally agree with, but not from an objective view when you deconstruct its function. Those who didn't like the ending subjectively, like me, just seem to have an easier time seeing how it's flawed, and where it ultimately fails when taking THE WHOLE consumer base into account, not just the people that liked that facet or disliked it.
But that's only one aspect of why the game was trash, if you really want to talk about how "great" the game was. The gameplay was a watered down quick-time event so that whoever is playing it needs to put no real effort into progressing through it, and then the lightseed collecting and backtracking for an arbitrary number of "here dog, fetch" seeds and stars was just downright uninventive and insulting if nothing else. Artistic direction was just about the only thing that was good Even the interaction between the two only characters was done in such a way as to be optional in order to pray chance not burden the precious consumer that doesn't want to deal with it. Not only that, the story was also fairly basic "ooh dark vs. light big bad dark monster, last Cetra/Ancient/Elika left to defeat the evil, and some very stupid allusions to religion (Ormazd etc. I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE) and generally a game made to look like much more than what it is; a fairly shallow quick time event made to waste your time by hunting biscuits like a dog by backtracking and acrobattin' through the places you've already been in, "IN AN OPEN WORLD".
Mirror's Edge was really the polar opposite. It requires a significant amount of skill, motor or otherwise, to get through, and is unforgiving in its presentation, having been judged poorly by a large majority because of not being as open and welcoming as say, PoP was. The story was drivel, but the GAME aspect was largely fantastic, as was the visual style and direction of it (if for any other reason, just because it was fresh, which also is the only redeeming quality of PoP).
The reason I prefer the execution of a Mirror's Edge like game, is the fact that while it's problematic because it requires a certain amount of skill, and while the vast majority that disliked it/rated it poorly because of that is justified, the fact remains that by picking up the slack on AN INDIVIDUAL'S end, the product improves accordingly.
With PoP it doesn't matter whether you're a god amongst gamers, or a two year old child, the game remains equally abhorrent even though both can equally get through it without any significant problem.
And actually, just because gameplay's simple doesn't mean it's crap, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's crap. It was incredibly relaxing, absolutely gorgeous, and interesting to listen to the conversation. I can appreciate DMC's sublime gameplay, but i can also appreciate this. It was relaxing in a time I needed something to relax with., so maybe I'm a little biased.
The story wasn't anything amazing in itself, but the story was never about anything but the prince.
ME requires skill, but got an incredibly frustrating aspect in its good gameplay, namely combat. Which was shit. In my opinion. Those who are gods at it may disagree. It always struck me the game would be far better just being a series of seperate challenge levels.
But ME and PoP are quite odd to compare, seeing as they were never really anything to do with one another. Cool, you prefer ME, but I am not wrong to prefer PoP, which you seem to feel vehemently that I am. It's entirely subjective. And that goes double for the ending.
The very fact that we are having this argument means I am right. It's not a flaw to only be liked by a subset.
You know Warren Spector and Gabe Newell have an endless argument going about this very thing. Obviously Gabe prefers a linear exp and Warren likes a lot of branching paths. Gabes point being if you are going to take the time and expense to generate content wouldn’t you want all of your customers to see it? I sit somewhere in the middle. I really think Starbreeze has the narrative in a game thing figured out. There is a very tightly put together story in their games, at least Riddick and The Darkness, with a lot of little choices along the way that allow the player to put their own twist on the experience without to radically changing the game or missing a lot of content.
And just in general Black Dove while I enjoy most of your posts, you do have tendency to come off as thinking your opinion is the only right one. While the story in Mirrors Edge will never be one of my favorites it hardly ruined the game for me. It was just a nice backdrop for some sweet gameplay.
No, no. You're totally right to like PoP to be your favorite game of forever if you so choose to. What you like is your own thing.
It's just when you bring it to me in an open forum is where I can't help but point out reasoning, which simply doesn't work in your favor no matter how much you may want it to. "Relaxing gameplay because I need to relax" and "The story wasn't amazing but the story was never about anything but the prince" (????) just don't stand up as fantastic arguments for the showcase of how the game is "great".
I think you're right though.
They should put that on their website as a big splash screen. Perhaps better worded, it should go like this:
Yeah, same for me. While I judge very harshly HL2 and such FPS linear games such as ME, even say CoD4, I can't deny I don't enjoy them when I play them.
However, there's a lot to be said for the open ended games and the... potential shall we say, that they provide. Note a good example here is PoP which I think we've discussed in this thread (I don't remember) which simply outright lied about being "Open World", but that is perhaps because we're still trying to find the middle ground maybe, and not so much of the "HEY, THIS /SEEMS/ LIKE OPEN WORLD, LET'S LIE TO THEM". But once it's released, it's fairly obvious what the nature of the animal is.
Far as storytelling goes, I am more of the persuasion that linear is used when you lack the skill to do it in a bigger way. Which is why I think the linear games are always trying to do it more open, more "choice" based. Like for example, Modern Warfare 2, that E3 video in the snow base - contrasting it with the first MW you're given a pretty big area to toy around with until you actually have to go and do your objectives. Same with Mirror's Edge, the intonation was and is "you can go about completing the level any way you like", which was also a marketing lie before they released it because the biggest "choice" you had was taking the boxes on the left or boxes on the right, before you go to the crane and jump off it.
I enjoy them linear and expansive since I see them as two different animals. Both have good showcases and bad, they can be fantastic or fail miserably. Ideally I'd like to see an age that combines them and makes them the same, but that means entirely different architectures and engines. Crysis was trying to do something there, that engine has some big potential, Far Cry 2 as well, those vast expanses, yet they were still more or less treated as linear experiences when push came to shove.
We have Fallout 3 say as an FPS in a big open world, that's an attempt at trying to bridge the gap. An adamant attempt with a lot of good content, though there are glaring shortcomings to such an endeavor, and it is a behemoth of an endeavor as it appears. I mean the sewers alone... I mean subways... you need to do that kind of copy pasting still. It's not easy to do it both at the same time. Shootan' aspects were off as well.
Same as you, even though I thought that ME's story was pretty trashy, I still enjoyed myself quite a bit because of the gameplay and its visual fidelity first and foremost.
Also WALLS OF TEXT. Apologies.
Why do you think there is such a thing as a target audience?
A game that helps me relax in a time I want to relax is a GOOD thing in my eyes. It gives me an opportunity that a lot of games don't. How exactly is that a flaw?
And the whole religion allusion thing is unimportant because that's only a backdrop for a story about a dude, was the only point I was making.
Fuck it, I'm not even arguing that the game is great, I'm just arguing that just because you view the ending to be bad, and you viewing the gameplay as poor does not mean they fucked up. It may mean that, but it might also mean it's not for you.
I really don't care enough to keep responding. You are just repeating "ME NO LIKE, GAME MUST BEEN BORKED" over and over again, with no reasoning as to why only your view can be correct.
I also state my reasons as to why I think my view is correct. I don't have any objections to you proving my view is incorrect. But you have to do more than just the "I have a different view, so since there are multiple views, your view is incorrect".
I gave thorough reasons as to why I thought PoP is shit and why its ending is shit both from a personal perspective and from an objective perspective based on judging the elements.
While I do totally agree you're entitled to your view, I'm not making any concessions to mine being the dominant one until you manage to assassinate it. I know it comes off as hostile, and I'm sorry if that offends you, I apologize for that.
But you're the one that seems to be taking the game to heart as your own personal relative that has an honor which must be defended at all costs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt7Fvl28hQg
(also I completely agree with Lewie P about PoP, I played it purely for the story and the story only as the gameplay itself was shit)
Satans..... hints.....
THIS GAME FUCKING SUCKS!
The exact same thing happened to me too. 1 second into the video I knew exactly what the guy was going through.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad