do you speak japanese? cuz as someone who doesn't, it didn't feel like there was much to analyze
Then bless your stars since there really isn't anything to analyze even with the dialogue. I'm not sure if you think that's a good thing but for a game with one of its selling points being the story it isn't for me.
no, you see, there wasn't much to analyze because without understanding the dialogue, it's just a highlight reel. whether or not it really said anything about the story at all is pretty ambiguous and the only way to know one way or another is if you spoke japanese. how can you criticize the story when there's nothing to criticize? (oh, and having nothing to criticize doesn't automatically mean there's no story either)
Wait, what? Is the character interaction that ambiguous to you that you can't understand what's happening? It's pretty straight forward. Samus meets dudes. Something bad is going on. Dudes run into a bunch of baddies and suck at killing things. Repeat until the end.
Now, I know this doesn't include the amazingly deep back story of Samus' past that will be the corner stone of this game but considering this will probably be most of the game it seems about as riveting as the Space Marines in Echoes, which is to say not very.
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer. so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers? who are they fighting? what ship are they on? what was the distress signal about? what were they doing on that planet? why does samus appear in an ice level? are all the indoor levels on the same ship? who is the antagonist in this game? what are the space pirates after? what happens at the end of the game? what was that explosion all about? oh and be sure to use spoiler tags, we don't want to ruin the story for everyone else.
do you speak japanese? cuz as someone who doesn't, it didn't feel like there was much to analyze
Then bless your stars since there really isn't anything to analyze even with the dialogue. I'm not sure if you think that's a good thing but for a game with one of its selling points being the story it isn't for me.
no, you see, there wasn't much to analyze because without understanding the dialogue, it's just a highlight reel. whether or not it really said anything about the story at all is pretty ambiguous and the only way to know one way or another is if you spoke japanese. how can you criticize the story when there's nothing to criticize? (oh, and having nothing to criticize doesn't automatically mean there's no story either)
Wait, what? Is the character interaction that ambiguous to you that you can't understand what's happening? It's pretty straight forward. Samus meets dudes. Something bad is going on. Dudes run into a bunch of baddies and suck at killing things. Repeat until the end.
Now, I know this doesn't include the amazingly deep back story of Samus' past that will be the corner stone of this game but considering this will probably be most of the game it seems about as riveting as the Space Marines in Echoes, which is to say not very.
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer. so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers? who are they fighting? what ship are they on? what was the distress signal about? what were they doing on that planet? why does samus appear in an ice level? are all the indoor levels on the same ship? who is the antagonist in this game? what are the space pirates after? what happens at the end of the game? what was that explosion all about? oh and be sure to use spoiler tags, we don't want to ruin the story for everyone else.
Wow. That's a lot of minutia that seems unnecessary even in the final game.
Tell you what. The main thing is that Samus turns into a Metroid in the end.
do you speak japanese? cuz as someone who doesn't, it didn't feel like there was much to analyze
Then bless your stars since there really isn't anything to analyze even with the dialogue. I'm not sure if you think that's a good thing but for a game with one of its selling points being the story it isn't for me.
no, you see, there wasn't much to analyze because without understanding the dialogue, it's just a highlight reel. whether or not it really said anything about the story at all is pretty ambiguous and the only way to know one way or another is if you spoke japanese. how can you criticize the story when there's nothing to criticize? (oh, and having nothing to criticize doesn't automatically mean there's no story either)
Wait, what? Is the character interaction that ambiguous to you that you can't understand what's happening? It's pretty straight forward. Samus meets dudes. Something bad is going on. Dudes run into a bunch of baddies and suck at killing things. Repeat until the end.
Now, I know this doesn't include the amazingly deep back story of Samus' past that will be the corner stone of this game but considering this will probably be most of the game it seems about as riveting as the Space Marines in Echoes, which is to say not very.
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer. so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers? who are they fighting? what ship are they on? what was the distress signal about? what were they doing on that planet? why does samus appear in an ice level? are all the indoor levels on the same ship? who is the antagonist in this game? what are the space pirates after? what happens at the end of the game? what was that explosion all about? oh and be sure to use spoiler tags, we don't want to ruin the story for everyone else.
Wow. That's a lot of minutia that seems unnecessary even in the final game.
Tell you what. The main thing is that Samus turns into a Metroid in the end.
Here's what I want from my Metroid story: something happens, Samus has to stop it, she's exploring environments with mysteriously power suit compatible upgrade which allow further areas to be explored.
I do not need ridiculous 24 style cut scenes introducing a cast of characters for my lone wolf hero to interact with and apparently care about. She's a mercenary!
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Having Samus ever interact with anybody living actually on the same planet as herself was just a stupid move for the series. Aside from the wholly second-rate writing and VA work, it completely removes the atmosphere of exploring a strange place completely on your own and with no backup. Not to mention discovering the story is a helluva lot more interesting than bumbling attempts at telling you the story.
It's bad enough that the series is taking a big step back to just being a game you play; I don't need some crappy writing telling me exactly what is happening and killing the mystery.
It's bad enough that the series is taking a big step back to just being a game you play
What does this even mean? Were you at some point "living" Metroid?
edit - I suppose you mean Metroid Prime, though. As much as I love Metroid Prime (my favorite game/series of the last decade), calling a 2d Metroid a "huge step back" is a little hyperbolic, no?
Graviija on
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Metroid Prime did a great job of making you forget that you were just playing a game. When the camera starts getting yanked around and you're completely prevented from moving in three dimensions even though there is clearly space to do so, then the fact that you're just playing a game gets jammed in your face pretty hard.
2D Metroid is fine. I would happily play another side-scrolling Metroid game on the DS. I wouldn't even necessarily mind a 2D Metroid with 3D graphics; Shadow Complex does that and it's great fun. However, having the next major Metroid game go back to 2D gameplay seems like a definite step backwards, especially when the the camera jumps between 1st- and 3rd-person.
It just seems like the devs are completely missing the things which made MP1 great and just keep moving farther and farther away instead of actually improving on what worked. Explicit story over discovery, removal of isolation, camera views which just hammer home that you're just playing a game, and so on. Obviously the series can't remain static, but I'm extremely, extremely disappointed with the direction of the franchise after it worked so hard to make the Prime style of gameplay great. It's not just the POV changes, it's several major elements getting changed.
Tons and tons of fans consider ever going to 3D a mistake.
I for one am excited about a new fairly 2D Metroid.
Also I'm sure the isolated feeling will still be there when you're actually playing the game.
People seem to forget about this point when they feel the need to hate on Fusion. You only talk to ADAM about ten times the whole game. The rest of the time? Alone, stewing in your thoughts, running the fuck away from SA-X.
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer.
so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers?
It's initially tense as samus and the soldiers face off, she recognises one of them and he tells his men to stand down, they decide to team up. One of the soldiers is a wisecracking ass, one is a young tech genius, one is a grizzled heavy weapons dude, one of them doesn't trust samus.
who are they fighting?
Space Pirates and monsters recklessly released/uncovered/encountered by the space pirates and/or humans.
what ship are they on?
A giant research vessel.
what was the distress signal about?
They were under attack/it was a trap/zomgmystery!
what were they doing on that planet?
Searching for a macguffin before the space pirates get it
why does samus appear in an ice level?
Because it's a cold place.
are all the indoor levels on the same ship?
No, several will be on the bad guys ship
who is the antagonist in this game?
Space Pirates/ridley/mother brain
what are the space pirates after?
A powerful energy source
what happens at the end of the game?
All of the marines are dead/One survived. Samus stops the badguys.
what was that explosion all about?
The space station self destructs because the badguys set a bomb/good guys sacrifice themselves to stop the badguys, either way it involves a daring escape!
If any of that isn't accurate to what happens in the game I will be fucking shocked.
Ooook. The suffocating amount of elitism in your post is a red flag telling me I should step out of this debate so I will. However, I would like to clarify a couple of my points that you misunderstood.
Elitism, shmelitism. It's completely by the point for the sake of this discussion, so stop using it as if it devalues what I have to say.
1. I'm not sure what you think gameranking is but just in case you didn't know, it's an aggregate review site that pulls its numbers exclusively from published reviews. But if that still doesn't jive well with you due to the impartiality in their selection of review, Metacritic has MGS4 at a 94 adjusted score. Yes, people can be wrong and I didn't mean to imply that high sales = a good product but great reviews combined with great sales is a much greater indicator of quality. Transformers 2 was an awful pile of putrid shit but it achieved what it did in the box office in spite of nearly universally scathing reviews, not in conjunction with them.
You got it backwards. Videogame reviews are known to be skewed- after all, exclusive deals are the backbones of videogame journalism, and those tend to come with favors. In other words: the bigger a game, the more probable it is no-one will ever give it a truly bad rating. This becomes even worse with big-name series like Metal Gear. Videogame reviews are more unreliable the stronger the tie to the industry becomes.
These people aren't suddenly noobs or ignorant pedants just because they disagree with your opinion.
...um... okay? So you're saying I can't magically alter people's opinions. Okay.
And why would I want that? Why should I care? EVERYTHING is liked by SOMEONE out there. Does that make every option equally viable? No! Because that's what discussion is for- justifying your own side of the argument. Whether people change opinion afterwards is their own business. I see errors in other people's views, and no-one countered them yet- I didn't hear anyone explain why exactly games become LESS shallow with MORE cutscenes.
Most of the outrage (that is, muffled sidestep-y internet outrage) seems to stem from feeling insulted. It's all fair game until someone's favorite game is called shallow, eh? I don't know about you guys, but I can enjoy the pulpiest C-Movies perfectly fine even while knowing it's shallow or even bad. As long as I'm entertained, one way or the other, who cares! But that doesn't change the fact that, eventually, EVERYONE wants genuine quality, not just spectacle.
Well, I seem to have gone back on my word and entrenched myself in the discussion even further. In any case, I don't think I have much more to say. In case you were wondering what part of your post turned me off indefinitely, it was this little number:
Also, I never mentioned it's a bad thing for everyone. It's a bad thing for those who want truly great games. For those who WANT shallow experiences, it's doubtlessly paradise on the store shelf.
With that, I bid you good day sir.
Again, you seem offended I called someone's (yours?) cinematic games shallow. Prove otherwise.
But, yeah. This discussion seems to slow down. I'm partially writing this because I'm curious whether this post will stay the last word on the matter... :P
That new Other M trailer looks promising, by the way... generic as hell, concerning the story (hey, space marines! Long time since we had THOSE!), but there seem to be some interesting battles (marines freezing the boss' arm, you shatter it), some nice scenery- and I belief I saw a shinespark somewhere. I'm curious how exactly the battles will play out...
Not to say I didn't like the Primes, but as great as they did some things they did other things very poorly.
I don't think I am the only one who felt like Samus was on sleeping pills. The movement and pace seemed slow and any time you were forced to do any platforming it was frustrating. Combat was meh and some times the firefights were the worse parts of the games. And for some reason I will forgive backtracking and fetch quests in a side scroller, but not in a FPS (or FPA).
The Primes were great because those minor gripes didn't really detract from the main focus of the games: Adventure and exploration. That being said, I never felt like Samus was a bad ass while playing those games.
This might focus on the Bounty Hunter aspect of Samus, more Action and exploration. I am okay with that.
I wouldn't say games that employ cutscenes are shallow. Bad cutscenes can exacerbate an already shallow game, but good cutscenes can enhance a game and draw a player more into the world. I will give you that cutscenes are not movies, but neither are youtube videos, flash animations, cartoons, geometry textbooks, and popsicle sticks with funny jokes on them, yet they are frequently used effectively for a specific purpose. Game cutscenes are not necessarily there to provide simple cinematic experiences to the player, but rather to transition the story between one point to another, to demo or explicate a new ability or strategy, or to reward the player for completing an objective or defeating a boss (it's much nicer to sit through a cutscene showing the explosive consequences of your badassery rather than have "YOU WIN OVER BAD GUY!" flash on the screen). You can't judge a video game cutscene by film and movie standards because cutscenes are not designed to be be film and movies in the same way the above medias I listed are not designed to be film and movies
Take for example a Link to the Past, a game rife with cutscenes of varying size. Imagine that every cutscene in the game was removed. You never hold up the Master Sword triumphantly after pulling it out of the stone in the Lost Woods. You never witness Zelda being ported into the Dark World. You never hold up a newly discovered item with the iconic 4-tone medley. All of the dialog never takes place. Oh yes, the ending doesn't happen. You kill Ganon, he disappears with no effects and says nothing, the door opens up, you go inside, the Triforce is there but doesn't talk to you, you run over to it, touch it, and the game ends immediately by going to black for a few seconds then taking you back to the main menu.
Story does not have to be part of the gameplay, but when done correctly, the story interweaves with the gameplay and causes the game to transcend into a well-rounded experience. Cutscenes, when properly deployed, are a viable and natural implementation of story.
As for my 2 cents on Metroid: Other M, I'm ridiculously skeptical. I want so much to like it, but I think I'm going into this game with the expectation that this is a re-imagining of the 2D Metroid formula but with faster-paced combat and more flair. However, the more I watch the videos, look at images, and read impressions, the less I see that original formula. I like that formula. I'm going to buy this game the day it's released, and I'm hoping my fears are unfounded, but this seems more and more like Ninja Gaiden in space.
Not to say I didn't like the Primes, but as great as they did some things they did other things very poorly.
I don't think I am the only one who felt like Samus was on sleeping pills. The movement and pace seemed slow and any time you were forced to do any platforming it was frustrating. Combat was meh and some times the firefights were the worse parts of the games. And for some reason I will forgive backtracking and fetch quests in a side scroller, but not in a FPS (or FPA).
Different strokes. I found the movement and pace to be fine, the platforming to be solid, and the combat to be fun. I never had an issue with backtracking, either. I like the feeling of, "I just got a new power, now where can I use it? Oh, I remember a spot!"
I'm going to buy this game the day it's released, and I'm hoping my fears are unfounded, but this seems more and more like Ninja Gaiden in space.
The running around and jumping in that latest Video looked super Ninja Gaiden like. Especially the jumping, it had the really fast Ninja Gaiden style jump rather than the floaty whoosh-whoosh-whoosh jump I associate with metroid.
I wouldn't say games that employ cutscenes are shallow. Bad cutscenes can exacerbate an already shallow game, but good cutscenes can enhance a game and draw a player more into the world. I will give you that cutscenes are not movies, but neither are youtube videos, flash animations, cartoons, geometry textbooks, and popsicle sticks with funny jokes on them, yet they are frequently used effectively for a specific purpose. Game cutscenes are not necessarily there to provide simple cinematic experiences to the player, but rather to transition the story between one point to another, to demo or explicate a new ability or strategy, or to reward the player for completing an objective or defeating a boss (it's much nicer to sit through a cutscene showing the explosive consequences of your badassery rather than have "YOU WIN OVER BAD GUY!" flash on the screen). You can't judge a video game cutscene by film and movie standards because cutscenes are not designed to be be film and movies in the same way the above medias I listed are not designed to be film and movies
You're correct for the most part, because you describe how cutscenes SHOULD be used. The examples you give, such as ALttP, are all brief, informative, occasionally awesome cutscenes. Now imagine the same scene four times as long, while Link gives you an inner monologue on how troubled and dark his childhood was and why did his girlfriend leave him and oh no and waaaaaah. It still wouldn't have been very long, but it would still bother you, right?
As for not judging cutscenes by movie standards: well, they're both moving pictures without any input from you, so basically, they are the same. We aren't judging them by different standards, we lower our standards when dealing with them, because that's what we expect after decades of horrible cutscenes. That's okay if the focus isn't on them; for example when you get a cutscene of the big boss exploding while screaming like a little girl. It's popcorn! Fluff! Nobody cares whether it's bad! As long as the game is great.
But it turns horrible when the focus is on them, mainly when we get substantially less game for more cutscenes, such as MGS. One might argue that this trend is merely superficial, trivial, even, and with good cutscene use that is true; but it does do damage to game development when done bad. Not only because the games become more expensive and, because of their shallow look-pretty-colors-nature, require constantly better graphics, but also because the actual game is neglected.
Story does not have to be part of the gameplay, but when done correctly, the story interweaves with the gameplay and causes the game to transcend into a well-rounded experience. Cutscenes, when properly deployed, are a viable and natural implementation of story.
I totally agree, except for one nitpick- story is ALWAYS part of the gameplay, because their cannot exist a videogame WITHOUT story. Tetris' story, for instance, DOES exist. It's just infinitely simpler and dumber than, say, Neverwinter Nights: Mask of the Betrayer. But on all other points, you're right.
Of course, the problem is the "properly". Too many developers overdo it, thinking they have to tell a story. But, at the end of the day, the actual GAME is always more important.
As for my 2 cents on Metroid: Other M, I'm ridiculously skeptical. [...] but this seems more and more like Ninja Gaiden in space.
Actually, this is the reason why I'm so curious about this game. It looks like a return to Super Metroid; but let's face it, the combat in Super Metroid wasn't that great. Switching through gadgets was a hassle, and it mostly boiled down to shooting the other guys dead before they reached your slow-moving ass. It served its purpose fine, though. Now, we have quick dodging, automatic targeting, context-sensitive, enemy-specific actions and all the old crazy jumps! If they now implement the same sense of discovery (GOTTA POWERBOMB EVERYTHING), this could easily top Super Metroid!
...yes, I choose to ignore the cutscenes. Why don't you? :P
Arteen: I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I get a little backtracking, that is fine, but I can't imagine being excited about mindless fetch quests that force you to re-tread over the whole damn game to find things that you could not just pick up along the way.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Prime games. They are dense and rich worlds that I enjoyed spending time in, but they never felt like they were action packed or fast paced to me, maybe I am alone on this.
As for my 2 cents on Metroid: Other M, I'm ridiculously skeptical. [...] but this seems more and more like Ninja Gaiden in space.
Actually, this is the reason why I'm so curious about this game. It looks like a return to Super Metroid; but let's face it, the combat in Super Metroid wasn't that great. Switching through gadgets was a hassle, and it mostly boiled down to shooting the other guys dead before they reached your slow-moving ass. It served its purpose fine, though. Now, we have quick dodging, automatic targeting, context-sensitive, enemy-specific actions and all the old crazy jumps! If they now implement the same sense of discovery (GOTTA POWERBOMB EVERYTHING), this could easily top Super Metroid!
Wingo: I am skipping the cutscene arguement because I don't care, but you hit the nail on the head about why I am excited about this game.
People say Ninja Gaiden in space like it's a BAD thing.
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer.
so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers?
It's initially tense as samus and the soldiers face off, she recognises one of them and he tells his men to stand down, they decide to team up. One of the soldiers is a wisecracking ass, one is a young tech genius, one is a grizzled heavy weapons dude, one of them doesn't trust samus.
who are they fighting?
Space Pirates and monsters recklessly released/uncovered/encountered by the space pirates and/or humans.
what ship are they on?
A giant research vessel.
what was the distress signal about?
They were under attack/it was a trap/zomgmystery!
what were they doing on that planet?
Searching for a macguffin before the space pirates get it
why does samus appear in an ice level?
Because it's a cold place.
are all the indoor levels on the same ship?
No, several will be on the bad guys ship
who is the antagonist in this game?
Space Pirates/ridley/mother brain
what are the space pirates after?
A powerful energy source
what happens at the end of the game?
All of the marines are dead/One survived. Samus stops the badguys.
what was that explosion all about?
The space station self destructs because the badguys set a bomb/good guys sacrifice themselves to stop the badguys, either way it involves a daring escape!
If any of that isn't accurate to what happens in the game I will be fucking shocked.
well yeah it's a metroid game. but you didn't really get any of that from the trailer, did you? nor were you specific.
in the end I guess haters gonna hate which is all I feel Shady is doing. Being worried about how the game will turn out is one thing but then there's shitting on every little shred of everything about this game. space marines, though definitely generic, really doesn't tell us anything about what happens in this game other than what we already knew by its very nature of being metroid. It certainly suddenly doesn't suddenly ensure that the story is going to be mundane and boring beyond toleration.
And Wingo: I don't even know how to begin to argue with someone who begins with the pretense that anyone who doesn't agree with them is automatically wrong about everything. I could take the time to lay out my points and counter yours but ultimately it'd be a waste of time.
Not that the conditions I named would be particularly easy to fulfill...
@DaveTheWave: Story is pretty much context, right? Let's ask our friend Wikipedia:
Story is a common term for a description of a sequence of events, or a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question (see Narrative)[...]
Obviously, we can't just have a description, because we're talking about videogames. The "description" is what we see. Don't believe me? Then, wouldn't it be entirely possible to tell a story only with pictures?
And that's what we have in any game: things we see. They necessarily evoke something. For example, if the blocks are colored red and have animated flames around them every three seconds or so, this would make them look... well... angrier! Already, something is expressed. Because there ARE things happening and changing, we also have a sequence of events told to us via pictures, and thus, we have a story.
Of course, in most cases, it will be an exceptionally boring, unimportant story summarized in a few words: Blocks fall down until you have enough points (I don't know Drop 7 that well, but I don't think it matters...).
So really, what we have here is just a disagreement from which point on a description of a sequence of events is complex enough to be called a story. That's fine, take your pick. My whole point is just that every single game in existence has necessarily such a thing- perhaps premise is a better word?
And Wingo: I don't even know how to begin to argue with someone who begins with the pretense that anyone who doesn't agree with them is automatically wrong about everything. I could take the time to lay out my points and counter yours but ultimately it'd be a waste of time.
Turned off indefinitely, eh?
Well, in any case, I don't remember saying people who don't agree with me are "wrong about everything". In fact, I don't remember ever adressing anything other than the points you made, and defending my own.
If you can name anything other than anecdotal evidence ("This game has lots of cutscenes, AND it is awesome! Therefore, lots of cutscenes are awesome!"), make your points!
Wingo on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Anyone who says that Super Metroid is terrible has automatically lost all credibility. :?
You've set up a false argument on your own terms, of course nobody's responding because they know you'll just reject anything they say. You want proof that cutscenes are "not shallow" or whatever, when we don't even have an agreed-upon definition of cutscene, much less a measure of whether something is shallow, pedantic, pandering, whatever. There is nothing remotely objective about this but you keep trying to talk about it as if it was.
Here, I can do the same thing: prove to me that cutscenes are bad. Provide "evidence." You can't, because it doesn't exist, therefore cutscenes are definitely a positive thing, now and forever.
Super Metroid has a bunch of janky shit in it, along with the (much coveted but ultimately unimportant) ability to break the game. The timing required on the wall jumps is... old school, to put it politely.
Unlike a bunch of other NES/SNES-era games, I wouldn't recommend it to anybody who isn't already a fan of the series. I can see how, at the time, it was an amazing and mysterious 50$ game that you could spend a whole summer on. But it's been thoroughly topped by other entries in the Metroid series as well as a few Castlevania's.
You know what I'd really like to see? A return of Mother Brain. Ridley (in some form) had been in (nearly?) every Metroid game, we haven't seen MB in 16 years (Zero Mission doesn't count).
You know what I'd really like to see? A return of Mother Brain. Ridley (in some form) had been in (nearly?) every Metroid game, we haven't seen MB in 16 years (Zero Mission doesn't count).
I assume you also mean a classic Mother Brain fight and not Aurora units.
You know what I'd really like to see? A return of Mother Brain. Ridley (in some form) had been in (nearly?) every Metroid game, we haven't seen MB in 16 years (Zero Mission doesn't count).
I assume you also mean a classic Mother Brain fight and not Aurora units.
You know what I'd really like to see? A return of Mother Brain. Ridley (in some form) had been in (nearly?) every Metroid game, we haven't seen MB in 16 years (Zero Mission doesn't count).
I assume you also mean a classic Mother Brain fight and not Aurora units.
Yea, fighting the contaminated Aurora Unit at the end of Corruption was pretty much a tougher MB fight.
You've set up a false argument on your own terms, of course nobody's responding because they know you'll just reject anything they say.
Well, I agreed to UberFlop and enlightenedBum. :P
You want proof that cutscenes are "not shallow" or whatever, when we don't even have an agreed-upon definition of cutscene, much less a measure of whether something is shallow, pedantic, pandering, whatever. There is nothing remotely objective about this but you keep trying to talk about it as if it was.
We haven't agreed on a definition because noone challenged mine. I provided one that I use for my points. Here, I'll write it out again:
Cutscenes are all parts of a game where control is taken away from the player.
Do you disagree?
Furthermore, I said what shallow is for me a few posts back: basically anything that is pure spectacle, but not substance. In movies, that's a shifting border; after all, even the most spectacular scene can have a point, advance the plot, tell us something about the characters, etc. However, in videogames, there is at least one border far easier to recognize: that when you stop playing.
Don't delude yourself. There ARE no "objective" definitions, except in math.
Here, I can do the same thing: prove to me that cutscenes are bad. Provide "evidence." You can't, because it doesn't exist, therefore cutscenes are definitely a positive thing, now and forever.
Funny that people keep misunderstanding me. I emphasised several times- even happily agreed when UberFlop presented the very same point!- that cutscenes are NOT bad. The OVERUSE of cutscenes is bad. Cutscenes themselves ARE necessary, because going by my definition (propose your own, people!), there will always be time where you aren't playing: loading screens, delay, credits, a video showing you where the next door opened, etc. But you'll agree they are necessary!
In fact, when you read my previous posts, you'll find that my theory says "Any game is improved by LESS cutscenes", not "THE COMPLETE LACK" of cutscenes. Yes, cutscenes are shallow; yes, they are needed; yes, they can make the game shallow, although that, understandably, is a matter of taste.
I did never claim to have the end-all answer as for how many cutscenes are good for a game. How could I answer that? It would differ from game to game, not to mention I don't KNOW every game out there! Don't act as if I had suggested anything of that magnitude.
I only suggested a theory, and proceeded to defend it on the terms I have described. If you have a problem with that, read more closely and poke holes in it.
So what I asked from you was actually to prove THIS theory: "Any game is improved by MORE cutscenes." Of course, this is extreme, but anything in between is useless for theory discussion: "Any game is improved by A LITTLE LESS cutscenes"? "Any game is improved by CONTAINING EXACTLY THREE cutscenes"? I can only work with general terms, here, because I am talking about videogames IN GENERAL.
But, if it softens the blow for you a bit: there are replacements. Half-Life did something to that effect, although it wasn't exactly perfect. In an ideal world, videogames would be the perfect simulation, responding to everything perfectly as intended, and their would be NO NEED for cutscenes. Obviously, we don't have that.
Make it even simpler: with more cutscenes, a game is LESS GAME-LIKE. It's simple.
I don't care if it's the scenes themselves or the overuse of them or anything else. Whatever it is you're saying, it's false and you have failed to present evidence to the contrary.
But I will reword what you're saying a bit - you keep saying things like "more" or "less," when what is relevant is the ratio. A 10 hour game with one short cutscene is no less a game than a 10 hour game with an additional 10 hours of cutscenes.
The gameplay bits look great, everything else not so much.
Ehhhhhhhhhh. I really don't like the prospect of having full 3D movement with a D-pad. I was under the impression you were only going to be moving along two dimensions at any given point, either X and Y or Z and Y.
Stephen Totilo's impressions of the first 30 minutes of playing Other M are pretty much what I'm feeling right now. I have way more optimism for the gameplay and far, far less for the story especially from what he saw.
If the story is as good as the best video game story in the history of the world it'll still be mediocre. :winky:
I'm heavily anticipating this game. The action looks great and we're finally back to Samus being fast like she ought. I've no reason to assume from the video released that the standard exploration/platforming elements won't be present. If Nintendo is confident that the control setup is aces than I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, despite it bending my mind a bit. Not thrilled about activating power-ups but I'm sure there's some twist none of us are expecting.
Stephen Totilo's impressions of the first 30 minutes of playing Other M are pretty much what I'm feeling right now. I have way more optimism for the gameplay and far, far less for the story especially from what he saw.
His post is such a huge troll looking for reactions. His own article sounds just fine, he praises the game often, yet the heading is "zomg whut if it is bad," as if that isn't going to spark controversy.
Frankly I haven't seen anything indicating that it might be a bad game. It might not be what's expected of a Metroid game, but that doesn't make it bad in general. If I went out and bought a game that called itself Tetris and I got it home and it played like Diablo 2, I would still love it. I might complain a bit about false advertisement, but I'd still enjoy playing the game which is all that really matters in the end.
And we're not even talking about something as disparate as Tetris -> Diablo. We're talking Metroid -> Metroid with a little more story. Oh noes! My nostalgic desire for everything to always be the same as it used to be can't take it!
I don't care if it's the scenes themselves or the overuse of them or anything else. Whatever it is you're saying, it's false and you have failed to present evidence to the contrary.
You don't know what I'm saying, yet know I haven't shown any evidence for that...?
But I will reword what you're saying a bit - you keep saying things like "more" or "less," when what is relevant is the ratio. A 10 hour game with one short cutscene is no less a game than a 10 hour game with an additional 10 hours of cutscenes.
You're making it too easy! The 10 hour game with one short cutscene? Whatever, leave it in.
The 10 hour game with additional 10 hours of cutscene? Remove them, except for a chosen few! Suddenly the whole game is less boring! And, look at that, the dev team has additional budget to make another two levels! Yay! Or are you saying that the cutscenes are worth the loss of those levels? If the story, as it is so important to the cinematic gaming enthusiasts, is really "outside" the mechanics, doesn't that make the game automatically worse?
Also, your commentary about the ratio is irrelevant, because I don't compare games here. I'm saying EVERY game profits from LESS cutscenes. That has nothing to do with ratio, although, sure, there is a bare minimum of cutscenes required.
@cloudeagle:
No, no, you see, it's not random! I've got a SYSTEM! :P
(Also, I think it's fair to say this isn't just relevant for Other M anymore. People here seem to agree its attempts at story look awful so far...)
Stephen Totilo's impressions of the first 30 minutes of playing Other M are pretty much what I'm feeling right now. I have way more optimism for the gameplay and far, far less for the story especially from what he saw.
His post is such a huge troll looking for reactions. His own article sounds just fine, he praises the game often, yet the heading is "zomg whut if it is bad," as if that isn't going to spark controversy.
Frankly I haven't seen anything indicating that it might be a bad game. It might not be what's expected of a Metroid game, but that doesn't make it bad in general. If I went out and bought a game that called itself Tetris and I got it home and it played like Diablo 2, I would still love it. I might complain a bit about false advertisement, but I'd still enjoy playing the game which is all that really matters in the end.
And we're not even talking about something as disparate as Tetris -> Diablo. We're talking Metroid -> Metroid with a little more story. Oh noes! My nostalgic desire for everything to always be the same as it used to be can't take it!
Well, there is a reason I didn't link to it. Plus, this game banks on nostalgia probably more than any game in the Prime series with its overuse of Super Metroid imagery.
Posts
well i'm impressed you can deduce the game's entire story based on a short trailer. so what exactly happens after samus meets the soldiers? who are they fighting? what ship are they on? what was the distress signal about? what were they doing on that planet? why does samus appear in an ice level? are all the indoor levels on the same ship? who is the antagonist in this game? what are the space pirates after? what happens at the end of the game? what was that explosion all about? oh and be sure to use spoiler tags, we don't want to ruin the story for everyone else.
Wow. That's a lot of minutia that seems unnecessary even in the final game.
Tell you what. The main thing is that Samus turns into a Metroid in the end.
I SAID USE SPOILER TAGS GODDAMNIT!
Here's what I want from my Metroid story: something happens, Samus has to stop it, she's exploring environments with mysteriously power suit compatible upgrade which allow further areas to be explored.
I do not need ridiculous 24 style cut scenes introducing a cast of characters for my lone wolf hero to interact with and apparently care about. She's a mercenary!
It's bad enough that the series is taking a big step back to just being a game you play; I don't need some crappy writing telling me exactly what is happening and killing the mystery.
edit - I suppose you mean Metroid Prime, though. As much as I love Metroid Prime (my favorite game/series of the last decade), calling a 2d Metroid a "huge step back" is a little hyperbolic, no?
2D Metroid is fine. I would happily play another side-scrolling Metroid game on the DS. I wouldn't even necessarily mind a 2D Metroid with 3D graphics; Shadow Complex does that and it's great fun. However, having the next major Metroid game go back to 2D gameplay seems like a definite step backwards, especially when the the camera jumps between 1st- and 3rd-person.
It just seems like the devs are completely missing the things which made MP1 great and just keep moving farther and farther away instead of actually improving on what worked. Explicit story over discovery, removal of isolation, camera views which just hammer home that you're just playing a game, and so on. Obviously the series can't remain static, but I'm extremely, extremely disappointed with the direction of the franchise after it worked so hard to make the Prime style of gameplay great. It's not just the POV changes, it's several major elements getting changed.
I for one am excited about a new fairly 2D Metroid.
Also I'm sure the isolated feeling will still be there when you're actually playing the game.
People seem to forget about this point when they feel the need to hate on Fusion. You only talk to ADAM about ten times the whole game. The rest of the time? Alone, stewing in your thoughts, running the fuck away from SA-X.
Elitism, shmelitism. It's completely by the point for the sake of this discussion, so stop using it as if it devalues what I have to say.
You got it backwards. Videogame reviews are known to be skewed- after all, exclusive deals are the backbones of videogame journalism, and those tend to come with favors. In other words: the bigger a game, the more probable it is no-one will ever give it a truly bad rating. This becomes even worse with big-name series like Metal Gear. Videogame reviews are more unreliable the stronger the tie to the industry becomes.
...um... okay? So you're saying I can't magically alter people's opinions. Okay.
And why would I want that? Why should I care? EVERYTHING is liked by SOMEONE out there. Does that make every option equally viable? No! Because that's what discussion is for- justifying your own side of the argument. Whether people change opinion afterwards is their own business. I see errors in other people's views, and no-one countered them yet- I didn't hear anyone explain why exactly games become LESS shallow with MORE cutscenes.
Most of the outrage (that is, muffled sidestep-y internet outrage) seems to stem from feeling insulted. It's all fair game until someone's favorite game is called shallow, eh? I don't know about you guys, but I can enjoy the pulpiest C-Movies perfectly fine even while knowing it's shallow or even bad. As long as I'm entertained, one way or the other, who cares! But that doesn't change the fact that, eventually, EVERYONE wants genuine quality, not just spectacle.
Again, you seem offended I called someone's (yours?) cinematic games shallow. Prove otherwise.
But, yeah. This discussion seems to slow down. I'm partially writing this because I'm curious whether this post will stay the last word on the matter... :P
That new Other M trailer looks promising, by the way... generic as hell, concerning the story (hey, space marines! Long time since we had THOSE!), but there seem to be some interesting battles (marines freezing the boss' arm, you shatter it), some nice scenery- and I belief I saw a shinespark somewhere. I'm curious how exactly the battles will play out...
I don't think I am the only one who felt like Samus was on sleeping pills. The movement and pace seemed slow and any time you were forced to do any platforming it was frustrating. Combat was meh and some times the firefights were the worse parts of the games. And for some reason I will forgive backtracking and fetch quests in a side scroller, but not in a FPS (or FPA).
The Primes were great because those minor gripes didn't really detract from the main focus of the games: Adventure and exploration. That being said, I never felt like Samus was a bad ass while playing those games.
This might focus on the Bounty Hunter aspect of Samus, more Action and exploration. I am okay with that.
Take for example a Link to the Past, a game rife with cutscenes of varying size. Imagine that every cutscene in the game was removed. You never hold up the Master Sword triumphantly after pulling it out of the stone in the Lost Woods. You never witness Zelda being ported into the Dark World. You never hold up a newly discovered item with the iconic 4-tone medley. All of the dialog never takes place. Oh yes, the ending doesn't happen. You kill Ganon, he disappears with no effects and says nothing, the door opens up, you go inside, the Triforce is there but doesn't talk to you, you run over to it, touch it, and the game ends immediately by going to black for a few seconds then taking you back to the main menu.
Story does not have to be part of the gameplay, but when done correctly, the story interweaves with the gameplay and causes the game to transcend into a well-rounded experience. Cutscenes, when properly deployed, are a viable and natural implementation of story.
As for my 2 cents on Metroid: Other M, I'm ridiculously skeptical. I want so much to like it, but I think I'm going into this game with the expectation that this is a re-imagining of the 2D Metroid formula but with faster-paced combat and more flair. However, the more I watch the videos, look at images, and read impressions, the less I see that original formula. I like that formula. I'm going to buy this game the day it's released, and I'm hoping my fears are unfounded, but this seems more and more like Ninja Gaiden in space.
The running around and jumping in that latest Video looked super Ninja Gaiden like. Especially the jumping, it had the really fast Ninja Gaiden style jump rather than the floaty whoosh-whoosh-whoosh jump I associate with metroid.
You're correct for the most part, because you describe how cutscenes SHOULD be used. The examples you give, such as ALttP, are all brief, informative, occasionally awesome cutscenes. Now imagine the same scene four times as long, while Link gives you an inner monologue on how troubled and dark his childhood was and why did his girlfriend leave him and oh no and waaaaaah. It still wouldn't have been very long, but it would still bother you, right?
As for not judging cutscenes by movie standards: well, they're both moving pictures without any input from you, so basically, they are the same. We aren't judging them by different standards, we lower our standards when dealing with them, because that's what we expect after decades of horrible cutscenes. That's okay if the focus isn't on them; for example when you get a cutscene of the big boss exploding while screaming like a little girl. It's popcorn! Fluff! Nobody cares whether it's bad! As long as the game is great.
But it turns horrible when the focus is on them, mainly when we get substantially less game for more cutscenes, such as MGS. One might argue that this trend is merely superficial, trivial, even, and with good cutscene use that is true; but it does do damage to game development when done bad. Not only because the games become more expensive and, because of their shallow look-pretty-colors-nature, require constantly better graphics, but also because the actual game is neglected.
I totally agree, except for one nitpick- story is ALWAYS part of the gameplay, because their cannot exist a videogame WITHOUT story. Tetris' story, for instance, DOES exist. It's just infinitely simpler and dumber than, say, Neverwinter Nights: Mask of the Betrayer. But on all other points, you're right.
Of course, the problem is the "properly". Too many developers overdo it, thinking they have to tell a story. But, at the end of the day, the actual GAME is always more important.
Actually, this is the reason why I'm so curious about this game. It looks like a return to Super Metroid; but let's face it, the combat in Super Metroid wasn't that great. Switching through gadgets was a hassle, and it mostly boiled down to shooting the other guys dead before they reached your slow-moving ass. It served its purpose fine, though. Now, we have quick dodging, automatic targeting, context-sensitive, enemy-specific actions and all the old crazy jumps! If they now implement the same sense of discovery (GOTTA POWERBOMB EVERYTHING), this could easily top Super Metroid!
...yes, I choose to ignore the cutscenes. Why don't you? :P
You are on crack.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Prime games. They are dense and rich worlds that I enjoyed spending time in, but they never felt like they were action packed or fast paced to me, maybe I am alone on this.
Wingo: I am skipping the cutscene arguement because I don't care, but you hit the nail on the head about why I am excited about this game.
People say Ninja Gaiden in space like it's a BAD thing.
well yeah
in the end I guess haters gonna hate which is all I feel Shady is doing. Being worried about how the game will turn out is one thing but then there's shitting on every little shred of everything about this game. space marines, though definitely generic, really doesn't tell us anything about what happens in this game other than what we already knew by its very nature of being metroid. It certainly suddenly doesn't suddenly ensure that the story is going to be mundane and boring beyond toleration.
And Wingo: I don't even know how to begin to argue with someone who begins with the pretense that anyone who doesn't agree with them is automatically wrong about everything. I could take the time to lay out my points and counter yours but ultimately it'd be a waste of time.
Not that the conditions I named would be particularly easy to fulfill...
@DaveTheWave: Story is pretty much context, right? Let's ask our friend Wikipedia:
Obviously, we can't just have a description, because we're talking about videogames. The "description" is what we see. Don't believe me? Then, wouldn't it be entirely possible to tell a story only with pictures?
And that's what we have in any game: things we see. They necessarily evoke something. For example, if the blocks are colored red and have animated flames around them every three seconds or so, this would make them look... well... angrier! Already, something is expressed. Because there ARE things happening and changing, we also have a sequence of events told to us via pictures, and thus, we have a story.
Of course, in most cases, it will be an exceptionally boring, unimportant story summarized in a few words: Blocks fall down until you have enough points (I don't know Drop 7 that well, but I don't think it matters...).
So really, what we have here is just a disagreement from which point on a description of a sequence of events is complex enough to be called a story. That's fine, take your pick. My whole point is just that every single game in existence has necessarily such a thing- perhaps premise is a better word?
@Guek:
Turned off indefinitely, eh?
Well, in any case, I don't remember saying people who don't agree with me are "wrong about everything". In fact, I don't remember ever adressing anything other than the points you made, and defending my own.
If you can name anything other than anecdotal evidence ("This game has lots of cutscenes, AND it is awesome! Therefore, lots of cutscenes are awesome!"), make your points!
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Here, I can do the same thing: prove to me that cutscenes are bad. Provide "evidence." You can't, because it doesn't exist, therefore cutscenes are definitely a positive thing, now and forever.
Unlike a bunch of other NES/SNES-era games, I wouldn't recommend it to anybody who isn't already a fan of the series. I can see how, at the time, it was an amazing and mysterious 50$ game that you could spend a whole summer on. But it's been thoroughly topped by other entries in the Metroid series as well as a few Castlevania's.
Steam ID: Good Life
I assume you also mean a classic Mother Brain fight and not Aurora units.
Shit, I need to go finish Prime 3.
I mean, yeah, classic MB fight.
Steam ID: Good Life
the less interested I become
http://www.audioentropy.com/
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
The experience could still be a compelling one, but goddam do those names hurt my brain.
Yea, fighting the contaminated Aurora Unit at the end of Corruption was pretty much a tougher MB fight.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Well, I agreed to UberFlop and enlightenedBum. :P
We haven't agreed on a definition because noone challenged mine. I provided one that I use for my points. Here, I'll write it out again:
Cutscenes are all parts of a game where control is taken away from the player.
Do you disagree?
Furthermore, I said what shallow is for me a few posts back: basically anything that is pure spectacle, but not substance. In movies, that's a shifting border; after all, even the most spectacular scene can have a point, advance the plot, tell us something about the characters, etc. However, in videogames, there is at least one border far easier to recognize: that when you stop playing.
Don't delude yourself. There ARE no "objective" definitions, except in math.
Funny that people keep misunderstanding me. I emphasised several times- even happily agreed when UberFlop presented the very same point!- that cutscenes are NOT bad. The OVERUSE of cutscenes is bad. Cutscenes themselves ARE necessary, because going by my definition (propose your own, people!), there will always be time where you aren't playing: loading screens, delay, credits, a video showing you where the next door opened, etc. But you'll agree they are necessary!
In fact, when you read my previous posts, you'll find that my theory says "Any game is improved by LESS cutscenes", not "THE COMPLETE LACK" of cutscenes. Yes, cutscenes are shallow; yes, they are needed; yes, they can make the game shallow, although that, understandably, is a matter of taste.
I did never claim to have the end-all answer as for how many cutscenes are good for a game. How could I answer that? It would differ from game to game, not to mention I don't KNOW every game out there! Don't act as if I had suggested anything of that magnitude.
I only suggested a theory, and proceeded to defend it on the terms I have described. If you have a problem with that, read more closely and poke holes in it.
So what I asked from you was actually to prove THIS theory: "Any game is improved by MORE cutscenes." Of course, this is extreme, but anything in between is useless for theory discussion: "Any game is improved by A LITTLE LESS cutscenes"? "Any game is improved by CONTAINING EXACTLY THREE cutscenes"? I can only work with general terms, here, because I am talking about videogames IN GENERAL.
But, if it softens the blow for you a bit: there are replacements. Half-Life did something to that effect, although it wasn't exactly perfect. In an ideal world, videogames would be the perfect simulation, responding to everything perfectly as intended, and their would be NO NEED for cutscenes. Obviously, we don't have that.
Make it even simpler: with more cutscenes, a game is LESS GAME-LIKE. It's simple.
You silly people. :P
Good ole Wingo, Wingoin' up the joint.
He does this every few months on a random game, by the way.
But I will reword what you're saying a bit - you keep saying things like "more" or "less," when what is relevant is the ratio. A 10 hour game with one short cutscene is no less a game than a 10 hour game with an additional 10 hours of cutscenes.
Ehhhhhhhhhh. I really don't like the prospect of having full 3D movement with a D-pad. I was under the impression you were only going to be moving along two dimensions at any given point, either X and Y or Z and Y.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Lyle Smithsonian is basically my favorite name.
And I really hope Maurice Favreau is referred to as "Mo" at least once in game. Preferably in service of a pun.
I'm heavily anticipating this game. The action looks great and we're finally back to Samus being fast like she ought. I've no reason to assume from the video released that the standard exploration/platforming elements won't be present. If Nintendo is confident that the control setup is aces than I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, despite it bending my mind a bit. Not thrilled about activating power-ups but I'm sure there's some twist none of us are expecting.
hypehypehype
His post is such a huge troll looking for reactions. His own article sounds just fine, he praises the game often, yet the heading is "zomg whut if it is bad," as if that isn't going to spark controversy.
Frankly I haven't seen anything indicating that it might be a bad game. It might not be what's expected of a Metroid game, but that doesn't make it bad in general. If I went out and bought a game that called itself Tetris and I got it home and it played like Diablo 2, I would still love it. I might complain a bit about false advertisement, but I'd still enjoy playing the game which is all that really matters in the end.
And we're not even talking about something as disparate as Tetris -> Diablo. We're talking Metroid -> Metroid with a little more story. Oh noes! My nostalgic desire for everything to always be the same as it used to be can't take it!
You don't know what I'm saying, yet know I haven't shown any evidence for that...?
You're making it too easy! The 10 hour game with one short cutscene? Whatever, leave it in.
The 10 hour game with additional 10 hours of cutscene? Remove them, except for a chosen few! Suddenly the whole game is less boring! And, look at that, the dev team has additional budget to make another two levels! Yay! Or are you saying that the cutscenes are worth the loss of those levels? If the story, as it is so important to the cinematic gaming enthusiasts, is really "outside" the mechanics, doesn't that make the game automatically worse?
Also, your commentary about the ratio is irrelevant, because I don't compare games here. I'm saying EVERY game profits from LESS cutscenes. That has nothing to do with ratio, although, sure, there is a bare minimum of cutscenes required.
@cloudeagle:
No, no, you see, it's not random! I've got a SYSTEM! :P
(Also, I think it's fair to say this isn't just relevant for Other M anymore. People here seem to agree its attempts at story look awful so far...)
Well, there is a reason I didn't link to it. Plus, this game banks on nostalgia probably more than any game in the Prime series with its overuse of Super Metroid imagery.