|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jun 15, 2009 21:50:49 GMT -5
I don't feel that certain genres should have stories and others shouldn't. Any game can have a story if it involves characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Jun 16, 2009 0:00:49 GMT -5
Super Paper Mario should've just been an RPG. Making it into a platformer was a bit rubbish, because it ended up as a subpar RPG and subpar platformer, excelling at neither.
And while I agree that genre shouldn't determine stories, in terms of the Mario universe, I think it's appropriate to leave significant storytelling to the RPG series. But in other franchises, stories can show up in whatever genre it feels like. Hell, look at Puzzle Quest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jun 16, 2009 4:12:41 GMT -5
Did any of you actually READ my post? Or did you just fixate on "Fry's ranting about Super Paper Mario again... Let's talk about that shit... AGAIN!" Even though I was only using it as an example. My whole point was that the best videogame stories don't TELL you a story, they stick you in the story and let you explore it. This can be done by giving you a consistent or interesting world, interesting characters and leaving the rest up to you. Mario's world is off-its-nut Loco! Trying to tell a meaningful story in Mario's world is like trying to make a meaningful episode of Spongebob Squarepants. The world wasn't created to sustain anything meaningful, it was created to be adventurous, exciting and... weird! And I even fixated on the Mario RPGs exploring the world, with higher importance than their main plotline. It's an RPG, so it has to go somewhere, but these games are good because they take you to places you've never been (and could never go in a main-line Mario game either). Even Super Paper Mario managed this a couple of times (everyone loves the Nerd Iguana level after all). But all that appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I really don't know why I fucking bother. Are we playing the same Zelda games? In the Zelda games, cutscenes are rarely very long (except at the very beginning and very end of the games). And there's monologues, rather than dialogues. We always know very little about Link himself, and this is key to the success of the series. Hyrule is an interesting place, however, and everyone is always looking for that elusive story. But we are fed it in such tiny and inconsistent chunks, it's a good bet we're being led up the garden path. You see right there. The entire creation of Mario (of how he looks) was due to graphical limitations. Miyamoto never intended to make the happy hopping mustachioed hero we know today. He just needed a sprite for the players to play as. It was because of circumstances that Mario ended up being the way he is. Over the years Mario shaped into a true character. But it wasn't all Miyamoto's efforts. It was thanks to the efforts of many. Like I said before, Miyamoto made a skeleton, everyone else made the flesh and blood. How do you know any of this? It's all speculation on your part. Miyamoto has been in total control of the Mario character since 1981. The sprite was designed by Miyamoto and early artwork was designed by Miyamoto. He created Luigi, the Mushroom Kingdom and its populace, told his back-story on Yoshi's Island and brought him into full 3D. He has been entirely responsible for every aspect of the character's creation AND evolution over the past 28 years. He didn't sit down and do the 3D modelling, others may have had the odd idea that Miyamoto agreed to... But to say Miyamoto didn't create the character because he hadn't created the fully-fleshed out character we all know today when he first appeared in 1981 really tells me how little you understand... about the creative process, about Mario... about everything really.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jun 16, 2009 7:51:41 GMT -5
In the Zelda games, cutscenes are rarely very long (except at the very beginning and very end of the games). And there's monologues, rather than dialogues. We always know very little about Link himself, and this is key to the success of the series. Hyrule is an interesting place, however, and everyone is always looking for that elusive story. But we are fed it in such tiny and inconsistent chunks, it's a good bet we're being led up the garden path. Ah, well that I can agree with. But when I was talking about cutscenes in Mario, I was meaning the same sort of thing as this (albeit on a smaller scale). I don't want to delve into the depths of Mario's personality, or to have him talk any more than Martinet's usual adlibbing. But I do want little story moments every now and then to pull me through the adventure, which I thought Sunshine did perfectly. Galaxy's cutscenes weren't great, though, mostly because whenever something was said, I'd have to look away from what's going on to find out what they were saying. That's fine in Zelda, where the text sticks around until you tell it you're done, but I'd rather Mario had either voice acting, or no speech at all, telling the story through actions in the same way the intro movies to the sports games do. In fact, the GC Mario Tennis and Golf intros are a pretty good example of the type of cutscenes I'd want in Mario games.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Jun 16, 2009 8:10:12 GMT -5
I got what you said, I just came in late in the conversation and threw in my two cents. I do agree to an extent. I came into Fable II not particularly caring about the story, since I just wanted to run around and do whatever the hell I wanted. The story was only there when I got bored messing around. Gradually I ended up caring about the story so much I want to go and play the original. The Metroid Primes were also good about only giving you the stories when you actually want them. But even Mario's bizarre world doesn't make it immune to epic storytelling. While it's true it can't have a story with the same scope as, say, Metal Gear Solid, that doesn't mean it should be limited to Bowser being a dick and Mario's gotta do something! The brilliant thing about Mario's world is that it was created specifically without limits. As long as things are portrayed consistently, you can have Mario go into space, visit the ocean, save all of reality, or even save a bunch of hotels in a poorly made unlicensed ripoff. The only quality that has to remain in tact is the spirit of Mario's light hearted world. You don't really die in that world... you just get a Game Over, and even if that happens, you always have a Continue. But that doesn't mean a character can't be all mopey and sad about the passing off a comrade. In fact, it makes for good comedy when their despair is entirely unwarranted. But there's some games I do play because I want to be told a story. I've more or less the RPG genre behind, but there are some games I do play because I want to be told a story, usually because they're sequels. I played all the Suikoden games for that reason... except for the DS one, because it ended up a departure to the series. I would suspect the same is true for the Metal Gear Solid series. I could never get into it myself (and not because of story, I just suck at the game). Of course, to be fair, I never played the first Suikoden just to be told a story. I was young and my taste in games was exceedingly low (seriously, look at the boxart for the first Suikoden and ask why any sane person would think it's a good game). I return to certain franchises for different reasons. For most of Nintendo's games, I do it for the gameplay. But I often do it because I'm also interested to know what kind of trouble Mario has got himself into this time, if Link will fight someone that's not Ganon, or if those damn Metroids and not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead (hint: they're not). He has been entirely responsible for every aspect of the character's creation AND evolution over the past 28 years. He didn't sit down and do the 3D modelling, others may have had the odd idea that Miyamoto agreed to... But to say Miyamoto didn't create the character because he hadn't created the fully-fleshed out character we all know today when he first appeared in 1981 really tells me how little you understand... about the creative process, about Mario... about everything really. Why should it even matter? It's true that Miyamoto is no Tolkien, but his job isn't to create deep worlds. That doesn't take away from any of the worlds he created anyways. As much as I appreciate the work of people who did it all on their own, like Tolkien, I find collaborative creations to be pretty great. Sometimes you'll run into inconsistencies, but on the whole you end up with a more imaginative world (or alternatively, a dumbed down world if you get too much executive meddling). Even directors or screenwriters can't take full credit for their characters. While it's true they'll go in with a general idea for a character, usually it's the actor that ends up influencing the character. Does that mean that George Lucas is a creative hack? Well, yes, but not for that reason. He may have created Han Solo, but it was Harrison Ford that defined the character. It was the Costume Person that gave him his classic look. It was whoever that did his hair that gave him his hairstyle. Several people contributed to make that one character come alive. Is that any different than Mario? |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Jun 16, 2009 8:26:12 GMT -5
I don't really think any of us specifically implied that we wanted a novel-length story full of meaning to be told to us via a Mario game. I know I didn't want a meaningful story. I just wanted a....story, if that makes any sense. I'm pretty much coming from the same camp as Masamune here. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jun 16, 2009 10:03:27 GMT -5
Just to make sure we're on the same page here...
If I said "Tolkein didn't create Frodo Baggins", I'd rightly be called a retard. If I said "Tolkein didn't create Frodo Baggins because he was constrained to the written page, rather than a 'real' character like he was in the movies" then I'd be even more of a retard. That's basically Koopaul's argument regarding Miyamoto and Mario, though.
I'm not saying other people haven't had a contribution to the Mario series or even the Mario character. Today, Shigeru Miyamoto greenlights everything, much like a movie director. But that doesn't take away from the fact that, in 1981, he created Mario... in 1983 he created Luigi and in 1985 he created Peach, Bowser, Toad and the Mushroom Kingdom, much as we know it today.
As I stated, some games work with a story. RPGs need a story, or else you're basically playing with a spreadsheet. The same goes for adventure games, which are dialogue and logic trees.
Back to Mario's world, I simply don't understand the problem. Is it that you don't feel the games have enough story? Or just frustration that Bowser has kidnapped Peach again? Or are you simply choosing not to notice the storylines we have been given?
You get a massive playground, extremely well-formed play controls and some of the best level design ever. Yet there continues to be moaning about the lack of a story.
And let's not forget this whole thing kicked off because Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't have as much story as Super Mario Galaxy. And I remain unconvinced that this is a problem. I didn't give a rat's ass about Rosalina in SMG, and I certainly don't want her tacked on to another awesome game.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jun 16, 2009 10:23:43 GMT -5
Mario Galaxy barely had a story as it was. It had about half of a story. It had a lot of build-up to a big fat nothing. The little plot that did exist was largely garbled nonsense which probably only means anything to the person who actually wrote it. The only way I can see Galaxy 2 having less story is if they somehow manage to create an anti-story. A void which sucks in plot instead of creating it.
But that'd be cool, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Jun 16, 2009 11:33:16 GMT -5
Well, I'm not really complaining. I thought Sunshine and Galaxy had just the right amount of story. It's just somewhat unsettling to hear that Miyamoto thought even that was too much. If I seriously wanted more story out of Mario's world, I'd be begging for a TV show or movie. That's the real ticket.
Still, I can't help but feel that if Miyamoto were in charge of everything from start to finish Mario would've gone down the same path as Star Wars, which Masa already drew a comparison with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jun 16, 2009 15:16:36 GMT -5
Sorry for the whole arguments here. I should explain myself better. I understand Miyamoto created Mario. I originally meant to say he didn't create the Mario that I fell in love with today. At least that's how I feel. I feel that it was NOA's part, from giving him the name "Mario" to giving him Charles Martinet's voice. We cannot say this is true. But its just how I personally feel. As for the story argument like I mentioned before: True, like yourself I don't need a story to motivate me. But this isn't about motivation to play a game. This is about what lies outside the game. The very fandom of these characters worlds and such. I don't just think about games when I think of the Mario series, I think of a whole entire universe of people and worlds that I love. The things you draw fan art about, the things you enjoy outside the games. That's my reason for wanting a story. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by Erik Aston on Jun 18, 2009 15:21:58 GMT -5
For me, the story of Miyamoto creating Mario is one of the quintessential stories demonstrating his genius.
The guy has a 192 pixel canvas to create a hero... And he comes up with the most enduring and popular character in the history of his medium... And someone wants to give credit to the "circumstances"? I don't get it. It isn't like Donkey Kong designed itself based on the limited hardware. If you recall, Miyamoto was tasked with creating a game to replace a failed game on the exact same hardware.
And I guarantee, if you like Mario because of his name and the Martinet voice, you are in the minority.
And as to the story, I think the original Donkey Kong is a perfect template. One brief cutscene establishes the motivation, and then you play. A conclusion cutscene at the end. In the early console games, the story was mostly out of the way, in the booklet. Mario 64 is another good example, with just a letter from Peach, and a warning from Bowser when you enter the Castle, some reaffirming of your motivation when you talk to Toads and battle Bowser, and then a fairly short cutscene at the end. That's enough. In Galaxy, the story got obnoxious, and I'm glad it will be cut back. I don't care if there's a "storybook" off to the side again, but please no long intro cutscene and tutorial. And don't get me started on the ending, which made the ending of Ocarina seem coherent.
Galaxy 2 is maybe my most anticipated game... The only thing that concerns me so far is that only "90-95%" of the game is new content. Unless there are 150 total stars, I don't want to be returning to old galaxies for new challenges. Either that, or the game better cost 5-10% less.
The fact that the game is "harder" and "for core players" is exciting to me. With Galaxy 1, there was a lot of talk about making 3D Mario as accessable as 2D Mario, but I think with both NSMBW and SMG2 announced, Nintendo is admitting that is never going to happen. 2D Mario will always be more popular and accessable, but the overwhelming responce to SMG1 from the "core" warrants an intense focus on pleasing the core with a sequel. I look forward to both games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jun 18, 2009 15:34:42 GMT -5
Again there's that word.... "motivation"
That's not what I need a story for! I already told you that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Aston on Jun 18, 2009 15:46:24 GMT -5
...Maybe the whole post isn't about you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jun 18, 2009 15:58:24 GMT -5
Err sorry.
It started as a response to me so I assumed it was all for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dasher Misire on Jun 24, 2009 0:42:18 GMT -5
I like this new kid.
|
|
