RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS!

[BruceVC]

_{http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/15/wot-i-think-dmc-devil-may-cry/#more-138252}

 

_{Here is a review of DmC. The more I read about the game the more I want to try it, I particularly like the way the game portrays the corruption of Western society by demonic forces.}

[Katphood]

_{http://www.rockpaper...ry/#more-138252}

 

Not a big DmC fan here, but that tempted me a little.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Astiaks

[pmp10]

_{http://www.rockpaper...ry/#more-138252}

 

_{Here is a review of DmC. The more I read about the game the more I want to try it, I particularly like the way the game portrays the corruption of Western society by demonic forces.}

I would suggest to not get this game for it's storytelling.

It was never the series strong suit and has received way too much screen-time in this installment.

[Tale]

_{I particularly like the way the game portrays the corruption of Western society by demonic forces.}

That doesn't sound a bit heavy handed to you? Perhaps a bit pandering.

 

I like a game to have a message as much as the next guy, but targeting Fox News as evil seems like low hanging fruit. Akin to jokes about airline peanuts at this point.

[Morgoth]

Dragon Age 3 artist: Xbox 720 tech won't be as "obvious" a leap as Xbox to Xbox 360

[BruceVC]

_{I particularly like the way the game portrays the corruption of Western society by demonic forces.}

That doesn't sound a bit heavy handed to you? Perhaps a bit pandering.

 

I like a game to have a message as much as the next guy, but targeting Fox News as evil seems like low hanging fruit. Akin to jokes about airline peanuts at this point.

 

I hear what you saying but I find it interesting, the developers are obviously targeting everything that many people consider are decadent and false in our society anyway. If demonic forces were real you can understand those places would be there natural targets. So banks and night clubs and then institutions that influence peoples opinions would be in there cross-hairs, like news channels. These would then allow them to subvert people to there iniquitous way of thinking. So the idea makes sense to me.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Dragon Age 3 artist: Xbox 720 tech won't be as "obvious" a leap as Xbox to Xbox 360

 

Please quote the guy instead of the article title. He's referencing budget and manpower, not the graphical output itself.

[Morgoth]

New Crysis 3 video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu3tBTlD36U

 

Sure looks pretty.

[Morgoth]

Dragon Age 3 artist: Xbox 720 tech won't be as "obvious" a leap as Xbox to Xbox 360

 

Please quote the guy instead of the article title. He's referencing budget and manpower, not the graphical output itself.

 

Are you always such a nagging pest?

[Hurlshort]

Dragon Age 3 artist: Xbox 720 tech won't be as "obvious" a leap as Xbox to Xbox 360

 

Please quote the guy instead of the article title. He's referencing budget and manpower, not the graphical output itself.

 

Are you always such a nagging pest?

 

Whoa, watch the attitude Morgie. Don't you know your performance reviews are coming up? If you don't follow proper linking procedure, don't expect that bonus check!

[BruceVC]

Dragon Age 3 artist: Xbox 720 tech won't be as "obvious" a leap as Xbox to Xbox 360

 

Please quote the guy instead of the article title. He's referencing budget and manpower, not the graphical output itself.

 

Are you always such a nagging pest?

 

Whoa, watch the attitude Morgie. Don't you know your performance reviews are coming up? If you don't follow proper linking procedure, don't expect that bonus check!

 

Clever and apt comment

[WorstUsernameEver]

Are you always such a nagging pest?

 

I always try to put things in context and I'm also partial against blatant clickbait misrepresentations of an opinion, yeah. And I wasn't attributing that to you, by the way, but to OXM.

[Morgoth]

Game studios need to improve dialogs and storytelling to attract A-list movie stars actors, says Quantic Dream co-CEO.

 

Aaaaand the budget for QD's next "game" will rise another €50 million, droit?

[Malcador]

Solution to a problem no one posed.

[Morgoth]

Here's my opinion on that: I admire QD's strongheaded direction doing what they're doing (interactive films or whatever), but trying to say "The whole industry must move into this direction" is false and arrogant. Most best-selling games including CRPGs that were always heavy on story never really required top-notch acting/mo-cap/dialogs to attract a huge customer base and sell well. The beauty of games is that there is no single procedure or direction that has to be taken. Due to it's interactive nature, a designer and story teller can take the narrative into any direction he/she wants to. David Cage hates that and therefor wants to convince publishers that he's better and smarter than anyone else and therefor should carry the financial burden.

 

Heavy Rain was a kinda nice and new-ish thing back then, but I don't think this trick will work twice. No decent gameplay, no longterm sales.

 

He could however try knocking doors at Film studios.

[Morgoth]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kevin-Butler/216931652237

 

Kevin Butler: "Be prepared to see the Playsatation 4 soon guys!"

[Morgoth]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-18-sony-to-drop-dualshock-for-the-next-playstation-report

[LadyCrimson]

Jay Wilson: no longer to be working on Diablo 3 and will be "transitioning" to other Blizzard projects instead. I am not surprised.

 

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/7592242994

[Tasaio]

Jay Wilson: no longer to be working on Diablo 3 and will be "transitioning" to other Blizzard projects instead. I am not surprised.

 

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/7592242994

While I thought some of the vitriol delivered his way was over-the-top, I'm not unhappy to see Jay Wilson replaced. He mentions that Diablo 3 was a group project, but throughout its development he seems to have treated it as his personal baby, and thought that he alone knew what was best for it.

 

I think NerfNow best expresses how I feel.

[Blarghagh]

Here's my opinion on that: I admire QD's strongheaded direction doing what they're doing (interactive films or whatever), but trying to say "The whole industry must move into this direction" is false and arrogant. Most best-selling games including CRPGs that were always heavy on story never really required top-notch acting/mo-cap/dialogs to attract a huge customer base and sell well. The beauty of games is that there is no single procedure or direction that has to be taken. Due to it's interactive nature, a designer and story teller can take the narrative into any direction he/she wants to. David Cage hates that and therefor wants to convince publishers that he's better and smarter than anyone else and therefor should carry the financial burden.

 

Heavy Rain was a kinda nice and new-ish thing back then, but I don't think this trick will work twice. No decent gameplay, no longterm sales.

 

He could however try knocking doors at Film studios.

Didn't it already work twice? Wasn't Heavy Rain a successor to Fahrenheit? I'm not sure, they're not my thing so I never checked. I disagree with the whole direction anyway - I'm sick of game devs who want to make movies. If you want to tell your story write a book or make a movie, in a game the player is your co-writer and you should allow them to make the meaningful choices as to where the story goes.

[Morgoth]

Metal Gear Rising boss fight trailer:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-18-revengeance-trailer-shows-off-three-boss-fights

 

Now that was amusing.

[Nordicus]

Platinum Games never seem to pull any punches, do they?

[Serrano]

 

Here's my opinion on that: I admire QD's strongheaded direction doing what they're doing (interactive films or whatever), but trying to say "The whole industry must move into this direction" is false and arrogant. Most best-selling games including CRPGs that were always heavy on story never really required top-notch acting/mo-cap/dialogs to attract a huge customer base and sell well. The beauty of games is that there is no single procedure or direction that has to be taken. Due to it's interactive nature, a designer and story teller can take the narrative into any direction he/she wants to. David Cage hates that and therefor wants to convince publishers that he's better and smarter than anyone else and therefor should carry the financial burden.

 

Heavy Rain was a kinda nice and new-ish thing back then, but I don't think this trick will work twice. No decent gameplay, no longterm sales.

 

He could however try knocking doors at Film studios.

Didn't it already work twice? Wasn't Heavy Rain a successor to Fahrenheit? I'm not sure, they're not my thing so I never checked. I disagree with the whole direction anyway - I'm sick of game devs who want to make movies. If you want to tell your story write a book or make a movie, in a game the player is your co-writer and you should allow them to make the meaningful choices as to where the story goes.

You say that but in my opinion it's a new genre that developers are still getting to grips with and the moment someone makes one of these games with story and direction on par with a highly acclaimed movie or television show then the whole process will have been more than worthwhile. I think that when one of these games does include real branches rather than forcing everyone down the same railroad it's going to reap big rewards, but then again adventure games have almost always railroaded players and still manage to be loved by a sizable fanbase so I don't know if it's ever going to be vital. Another benefit not to be overlooked is that this is a genre that can easily work without any violent content and seriously delve into stories about romance, tragedy, comedy ect. in a way that other game types couldn't hope to. And the advantages over a film are that you can actually be in the story effecting things and you can actually see other ways the story can go. Some stories may work better as interactive games than straight-up-movies, I imagine something like The Thing where you're stuck in a room with a number of people and wondering who the monster is might be even more atmospheric for example. I think there's a lot of untapped potential and that it's worth exploring even if they're not for everyone.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Serrano

[Calax]

Here's my opinion on that: I admire QD's strongheaded direction doing what they're doing (interactive films or whatever), but trying to say "The whole industry must move into this direction" is false and arrogant. Most best-selling games including CRPGs that were always heavy on story never really required top-notch acting/mo-cap/dialogs to attract a huge customer base and sell well. The beauty of games is that there is no single procedure or direction that has to be taken. Due to it's interactive nature, a designer and story teller can take the narrative into any direction he/she wants to. David Cage hates that and therefor wants to convince publishers that he's better and smarter than anyone else and therefor should carry the financial burden.

 

Heavy Rain was a kinda nice and new-ish thing back then, but I don't think this trick will work twice. No decent gameplay, no longterm sales.

 

He could however try knocking doors at Film studios.

 

I think that their point is that if a game studio wants to get people like Gary Oldman or Michael Caine and have them actually TRY at voice acting (Ok, Gary does try, but a good example of the lack of trying would be pierce Brosnan in the Everything Or Nothing) there needs to be a jump in the quality of characters and writing in most of the games that want/need that level of acting. RPG's don't NEED to have James Earl Jones as one of the characters, because most of the time, those characters won't be modeled or marketed around the voices in the games. Meanwhile something like Call of Duty, or Battlefield, or whatever, will want to attract the A listers to set itself apart from other games where you fire an M-16 at somebody elses face.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

Here's my opinion on that: I admire QD's strongheaded direction doing what they're doing (interactive films or whatever), but trying to say "The whole industry must move into this direction" is false and arrogant. Most best-selling games including CRPGs that were always heavy on story never really required top-notch acting/mo-cap/dialogs to attract a huge customer base and sell well. The beauty of games is that there is no single procedure or direction that has to be taken. Due to it's interactive nature, a designer and story teller can take the narrative into any direction he/she wants to. David Cage hates that and therefor wants to convince publishers that he's better and smarter than anyone else and therefor should carry the financial burden.

 

Heavy Rain was a kinda nice and new-ish thing back then, but I don't think this trick will work twice. No decent gameplay, no longterm sales.

 

He could however try knocking doors at Film studios.

Didn't it already work twice? Wasn't Heavy Rain a successor to Fahrenheit? I'm not sure, they're not my thing so I never checked. I disagree with the whole direction anyway - I'm sick of game devs who want to make movies. If you want to tell your story write a book or make a movie, in a game the player is your co-writer and you should allow them to make the meaningful choices as to where the story goes.

You say that but in my opinion it's a new genre that developers are still getting to grips with and the moment someone makes one of these games with story and direction on par with a highly acclaimed movie or television show then the whole process will have been more than worthwhile. I think that when one of these games does include real branches rather than forcing everyone down the same railroad it's going to reap big rewards, but then again adventure games have almost always railroaded players and still manage to be loved by a sizable fanbase so I don't know if it's ever going to be vital. Another benefit not to be overlooked is that this is a genre that can easily work without any violent content and seriously delve into stories about romance, tragedy, comedy ect. in a way that other game types couldn't hope to. And the advantages over a film are that you can actually be in the story effecting things and you can actually see other ways the story can go. Some stories may work better as interactive games than straight-up-movies, I imagine something like The Thing where you're stuck in a room with a number of people and wondering who the monster is might be even more atmospheric for example. I think there's a lot of untapped potential and that it's worth exploring even if they're not for everyone.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. At no point am I saying that I don't want games or interactive storytelling to delve into new territory. I applaud game developers focusing on making a game engaging and breaking new ground, and I love interactive storytelling. I just don't think QD is doing that. They might think they are, but turning games into movies with some pointless game elements pasted on seems like an enormous fall backwards to me. Personally, I feel that for interactive storytelling, especially for non "gamey" games that don't rely on frags or points or the loot machine, meaningful choice is all the more important.

 

The problem with QD as far as I've seen (I hated Fahrenheit and Fahrenheit looked like more of the same so I have to admit I never bothered with it) is that there is no interactive storytelling. There is interaction, there is storytelling, but the two don't really intersect. You have your game elements, the interaction where you do what the game tells you to do and you make no real choices, and you have your movie elements where the storytelling takes place. It might be interesting storytelling but it is not interactive storytelling because you are not actually interacting with the story - that makes it a movie or a book that is pretending to be a game. In my opinion, Fahrenheit being a game detracted from it more than anything - I just wanted the damn thing to get to it and not make me jump through boring hoops to get to the next part. I ended up quitting and watching the rest on YouTube which was a far more satisfying experience. There is literally no reason why Fahrenheit should be a game instead of something else.

 

I want to clarify that I have no problem with cinematic games, but obviously QD wants to make movies - that's why they want A-Listers, Mo-Cap, etc., but I disagree that this is the direction games have to go. Personally I loved another cinematic game, namely TellTale's The Walking Dead. I like it because I felt like my choices mattered. I don't know if they actually did, I never checked what the alternatives did, but the main thing is that it felt like they did. It also worked as engaging storytelling, judging by how I and many others had manly tears dammitat the end. It felt like your choices determined what happened to these characters, and therefore you were responsible for them. Instead of giving you obstacles that block the story from continuing such as Fahrenheit did it allowed you to be the one to drive the story forward. It succeeded as interactive storytelling where Fahrenheit failed simply because it provided meaningful choices and it didn't need fancy graphics or top notch voice acting to do so.

 

I also disagree with the assessment that to make a game break new ground you need to make it more like a genre movie. Here's an example of a game that follows all the adventure game trappings yet still manages to be highly engaging and able to invoke powerful emotions: Frictional Games' Amnesia: The Dark Descent. The "plot" itself is railroaded and the puzzles have standard adventure game solutions, yet this game is widely regarded as the scariest game ever made. I feel that again this is due to meaningful choice, despite it not being so apparent. You follow the game story, yes, but since the goal of the game is to play with your emotions it places all the meaningful choices there. Do I run? Do I hide in the darkness? Am I safe enough to turn on the lantern? Am I going to risk going into the next room? Again, highly interactive storytelling, on an emotional level rather than a plot level, simply because of the choices you are given, and this game did not need masterful graphics to be absolutely immersive and terrifying.

 

So yeah, I have no problem with games being more "cinematic" as long as they are still games. The interaction has to be meaningful and no amount of fancy graphics or convincing acting will turn a movie masquarading as a game into engaging interactive storytelling. Making these games more like movies will detract from them so if you want to make a movie, go make a movie. Player interaction should always come first in games, if you want players to experience your story as players then you should let them be the one allowing it to play out. If your goal is just to tell your story - if you want to see your story play out exactly as you see it, gtfo and pick up a goddamned camera.

 

I hate it when forums suck me in like this and I spend until 2 AM trying to formulate my thoughts.

Edited January 19, 2013 by TrueNeutral