Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pidesco

Mass Effect 2

Recommended Posts

Someone had an interesting theory that more than anything, the problem is the developers themselves being just immature or washed up writers who use it as an avenue to finally publish their epic story that all the movie and book people rejected. So it's not the gamers that were immature, but the developers that slowly established the current "gaming culture" and now it's just a negative feedback loop.

So it's like how all rock stars are orchestral composers who just couldn't make the cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like how pop(hey, that's almost a pun) stars become celebrities because no one would listen to their crap otherwise.

Edited by Purkake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic idea is that because developers started out making games simple stories(or no stories), the audience accepted that. Then new developers mostly catered to what the audience wanted thus creating a feedback loop that discouraged more intelligent games in favor of more fun ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic idea is that because developers started out making games simple stories(or no stories), the audience accepted that. Then new developers mostly catered to what the audience wanted thus creating a feedback loop that discouraged more intelligent games in favor of more fun ones.

 

 

I think gaming is still a relatively young medium and hasn't really developed much other than technically. Stories in games tend to be rather simplistic, broad swipes of bright color, without much subtlety, mostly becuase its just easier to deal with.

 

 

Games I think will always be sort on an uneasy balance between gameplay and story, unlike a novel or a movie which can be mostly story since there really is no interaction, only presentation.

 

 

The need for games to be interactive forces simplification of the narrative presentation almost by neccessity. IMO.


Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic idea is that because developers started out making games simple stories(or no stories), the audience accepted that. Then new developers mostly catered to what the audience wanted thus creating a feedback loop that discouraged more intelligent games in favor of more fun ones.

Not trying to call you out bro but are you reading what your writing? A game is meant for entertainment: fun = them doing their jobs. If I want something intelligent I'll read a quantum physics textbook. And honestly, I don't mind, in fact I rather like the story to be simple in video games. Simple doesn't have to mean childish or cliche. I don't particularly enjoy the way bioware (and other developers?) is moving, where they try and create these tough/morally ambigious choices for the player to make. That kind of crap stresses me out. Sure I guess in some sense it creates a more personal and engaging story but really in my mind it creates doubt, confusion, and ultimately the choice has no real consequence in many cases.


There was a time when I questioned the ability for the schizoid to ever experience genuine happiness, at the very least for a prolonged segment of time. I am no closer to finding the answer, however, it has become apparent that contentment is certainly a realizable goal. I find these results to be adequate, if not pleasing. Unfortunately, connection is another subject entirely. When one has sufficiently examined the mind and their emotional constructs, connection can be easily imitated. More data must be gleaned and further collated before a sufficient judgment can be reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All RPGs are about saving the world, even if some try to disguise it a bit (torment). It's what you do in that type of game, just like killing stuff and getting loot.

No. Gothic was all about you trying to escape your prison island. Awesome story too.


Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt there still some archdemon you have to defeat in the end to save the world?


DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic idea is that because developers started out making games simple stories(or no stories), the audience accepted that. Then new developers mostly catered to what the audience wanted thus creating a feedback loop that discouraged more intelligent games in favor of more fun ones.

Not trying to call you out bro but are you reading what your writing? A game is meant for entertainment: fun = them doing their jobs. If I want something intelligent I'll read a quantum physics textbook. And honestly, I don't mind, in fact I rather like the story to be simple in video games. Simple doesn't have to mean childish or cliche. I don't particularly enjoy the way bioware (and other developers?) is moving, where they try and create these tough/morally ambigious choices for the player to make. That kind of crap stresses me out. Sure I guess in some sense it creates a more personal and engaging story but really in my mind it creates doubt, confusion, and ultimately the choice has no real consequence in many cases.

 

 

That's a pretty narrow view of entertainment you got there. I certainly have more fun with a piece of entertainment which challenges me emotionally, then one that doesn't.


"My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist
I am Dan Quayle of the Romans.
I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.
Heja Sverige!!
Everyone should cuffawkle more.
The wrench is your friend. :bat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isnt there still some archdemon you have to defeat in the end to save the world?

Nah, you kill it because it's the one holding up the magical barrier around the area preventing your exit. Simple enough.


I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden.

 

It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai.

So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you're talking about how fields of entertainment grow.. Home Gaming (pc / console) is really what, about 20 -30 years old now? Compare it to what cinema and tv were like in the first few decades.. hell, look at what they were still churning out 50 years on.. or even the "usual summer blockbusters" a century on..

 

A lot of it is the equivalent of "bright primary colors" to make people happy without much depth.. but it changes over time. It's only been in the relatively recent years (okay, rolling into 2000) that games were still thought to be just a thing for kids. If you were into video games, you were expected to grow out of it... So there's not that much of a surprise that a lot of game history storylines were running along the same style as saturday morning cartoons. Although there were various games that were outside of that "box" most of them fell into it. Now it's being more accepted that video games are not just for kids and they're starting to put more depth and more content in. But it's all part of the progress...


"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's only been in the relatively recent years (okay, rolling into 2000) that games were still thought to be just a thing for kids. If you were into video games, you were expected to grow out of it...

 

Still is like that, people have just given up hope for you. :lol:


You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone had an interesting theory that more than anything, the problem is the developers themselves being just immature or washed up writers who use it as an avenue to finally publish their epic story that all the movie and book people rejected. So it's not the gamers that were immature, but the developers that slowly established the current "gaming culture" and now it's just a negative feedback loop.

I'm going to disagree with you here, even though your reason may be valid and true I find it to be too vague, since it fails to account the process and models of gamemaking. Games; even though they are at an advanced state are still young, it is not until these recent years when story has become a central part of games. The formulas for writing story games are still growing and finding their own language, plus there is the constant corporate element and from that perspective the "sell what works" formula. So if a story works why risk with something completely new; to draw a comparison here with the movie industry I would say that they both suffer from the same ailment of blockbusting and doing something merely for the sake of sales. While this on itself is not an assurance of a lower level of storytelling, some blockbusters have great storyline; there is the fact that innovation is kept to a minimum regarding the formulas. I would put the Independent and Indie world of cinema as where the innovation truly is, and while it may not always be a success it is still a try and a source of results. This is the same for games indie games is where the innovation is; the great difference is that games are interactive and that is their main focus, story falls second to that. There is also the issue of length, the time it takes a game to develop a story and connect the gamer to the characters is more than 2 hours at a minimum and this just a guesstimate. This leaves a lot of black spots on the story relating to a character; times where the writer is at a loss, has hit a wall and this is where the true and tries formulas and structures come to the rescue. On the part of the gamer, is hard to make someone try a radically innovative game (most people don't have the time); most of the tech and structure is based on previous and mostly unknown games, so to push that at AAA title would be a greater risk. Because it hasn't been tried, because there is no feedback, and because there is the potential for great loss I think that they stick with "tried and done" rather than going with "radical innovation". IMO this loop is the result of this rather than lack of effort or talent on the developers' side.


I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games I think will always be sort on an uneasy balance between gameplay and story, unlike a novel or a movie which can be mostly story since there really is no interaction, only presentation.

 

 

The need for games to be interactive forces simplification of the narrative presentation almost by neccessity. IMO.

To me, the best thing about games is interactive storytelling. There should be no conflict there at all. The problem is many developers treat story and gameplay as separate things, but to be a powerful medium games have to merge the two.


"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably becouse it is hard to combine them in a meaningful and good way. it is easy to create basic parts but it gets messy when you try to make a complex product. Hell, even a basic fight scene where the map, the props and the enemy mesh well is pretty non-existent so we get the "speed" and "horde" sections to stop us noticing the dificient parts. Do you really expect a whole product when each 1/3 of it can be made "barely passable" grade?


IG. We kick ass and not even take names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try not to get too bent out of shape over what I posted, it's just a theory I heard on a podcast IIRC. Nothing more than a different way of looking at things.

 

Orogun01, I highly recommend paragraphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What for? I never need to take a breath in between my rants :lol:

 

But while we are on the subject: I find it interesting that greater marketing leads to more sales rather than critical acclaim; based EEDAR's accounts. So is no surprise that EA is pushing this game forward and trying to expand Bioware's fan base, since they had to close up shop on many studios and put a lot of their new IPs on the back burner. Again, corporate pressure to play it safe and go with what is guaranteed to sell.

Edited by Orogun01

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games I think will always be sort on an uneasy balance between gameplay and story, unlike a novel or a movie which can be mostly story since there really is no interaction, only presentation.

 

 

The need for games to be interactive forces simplification of the narrative presentation almost by neccessity. IMO.

To me, the best thing about games is interactive storytelling. There should be no conflict there at all. The problem is many developers treat story and gameplay as separate things, but to be a powerful medium games have to merge the two.

 

 

Of course there's a conflict. The more choices the player is allowed, the more difficult is becomes to present a well-structured narrative. If the choices are trivial ones, then it is less of an issue, certainly, since the narrative doesn't have to alter grearlt to present a trivial choice. But major choices require major alterations of the narrative.

 

Good luck with that in this day and age of inflated game budgets.

 

Down the road, if AI becomes better at responding to player chocie and altering narrative flow dynamically, then it would be much more possible.


Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games I think will always be sort on an uneasy balance between gameplay and story, unlike a novel or a movie which can be mostly story since there really is no interaction, only presentation.

 

 

The need for games to be interactive forces simplification of the narrative presentation almost by neccessity. IMO.

To me, the best thing about games is interactive storytelling. There should be no conflict there at all. The problem is many developers treat story and gameplay as separate things, but to be a powerful medium games have to merge the two.

 

 

Of course there's a conflict. The more choices the player is allowed, the more difficult is becomes to present a well-structured narrative. If the choices are trivial ones, then it is less of an issue, certainly, since the narrative doesn't have to alter grearlt to present a trivial choice. But major choices require major alterations of the narrative.

 

Good luck with that in this day and age of inflated game budgets.

 

Down the road, if AI becomes better at responding to player chocie and altering narrative flow dynamically, then it would be much more possible.

Interactive doesn't just mean you occassionally get to make a "big" choice, although that's what Bioware is now defaulting to. In fact the best interactive story telling I've seen are games like Call of Cthulhu, Shenmue 2, and Thief: DS, where you hardly make any choices at all. Of course it's also possible to tell a story in a choice driven game, which is what Age of Decadence is trying to do, so we'll see how well that works. As far as mainstream developers, let's just say their priorities lie elsewhere $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their priorties is making enough profit to keep themselevs in business and they do so by delivering a product that gamers want to play, and not just a handful of nerds in their parents' basement either. And, since almost everyone here (except potentially the mouse man) have scopped up mainstream developer BIO's latest game you really looks silly whining about their push for mainstream success when you buy their games anyways. *shrug*

 

If BIo doesn't make your style of game, then don't buy them. THAT'S the way to let them know their games aren't working.

 

Why should BIO follow in Troika's foosteps as all that does is make everyone unemployed and begging your former employer thats crewed you to work on their fake MMO or basically pushes you of the entire gaming business. Espicially since all 3 of Troika games - even the ones I personally enjoyed - have major flaws anyways and aren't to be looked up.


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy their games anyway, I bought their last two games, didn't like them, and not planning to buy any more. So far as what they do from now on, I care no more than what the rest of EA does.


"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The basic idea is that because developers started out making games simple stories(or no stories), the audience accepted that. Then new developers mostly catered to what the audience wanted thus creating a feedback loop that discouraged more intelligent games in favor of more fun ones.

Not trying to call you out bro but are you reading what your writing? A game is meant for entertainment: fun = them doing their jobs. If I want something intelligent I'll read a quantum physics textbook.

 

My initial reaction to this post was to seriously question the moral hazard of eugenics, but nothing will come out of that, so i will respond nicely:

 

You should not try encapsule what is intelligent, complex, fun or entertaining into artificial definitions that only exists in your head. It only serves the to simplify your surroundings and hinders the development of the mind. Entertainment is not about simple laughs, it is much more than that. Instead of disregarding something that is not entertaining in your view, learn to appriciate what you see as a thing in itself. Do not worry if something feels like it is over your head. Examine, ponder, wonder until you see it. You will get some things by the second you see them, and others might take a while, but there's nothing wrong with that. It pretty much reflects life itself.

 

Things will open up to you. You will gain new knowledge, you'll see aestethic beauty that you previously missed, you will learn something new and profound. Intellectual curiosity is what brings out the best of man, willful ignorance is what destroys it.


"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't buy their games anyway, I bought their last two games,"

 

Let's rephrase this quote....

 

 

I DON'T BUY THEIR GAMES ANYWAY

 

 

 

I BOUGHT THEIR LAST TWO GAMES

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

 

 

Jigga wut?


DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The don't buy their games card doesn't really work since the number of story driven RPGs that are released each year is countable on the fingers of one had... if you cut off a few fingers.

 

If you ignore Bioware, you're left with Obsidian and CDProjekt Red for story driven RPG's. The first one has only a few games of varying quality to their name, the second - one.

 

Gothic, Divinity, Drakensang etc may be good games, but they're not the same type of experience.

Edited by RPGmasterBoo

logosig2.jpg

Imperium Thought for the Day: Even a man who has nothing can still offer his life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...