|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jan 12, 2011 14:16:39 GMT -5
I'm saying that all games let you control the character... which was what seemed to be your point. But now I'm even more confused.  My opinions on Sunshine and Galaxy were the opposite. Galaxy remains one of the most confusing video games I've ever played. There's a story, but damned if I can figure out what it is. At the end of the game everything gets destroyed, but then a baby cries for a while and giant Rosalina explains the big bang, and then... Mario wakes up back home and says hello to the galaxy? Um, what? I was never confused about what was going on in Sunshine, and it's still the Mario platformer that immersed me the most in its world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2011 16:03:21 GMT -5
Lots to respond to here... In a game where the focus is strictly on gameplay, I have no problem with the protagonist being silent and with few traits that are defined within the context of the game alone. Allowing the player to fill in the gaps is by extension immersive; I can impart whatever I feel like on Link, Samus, Mario, et cetera, using the established traits as a basis. Case in point: when I first played Pokemon Ruby, I chose the girl (as is my wont). Even though scant details were given about her, I was able to cobble together a personality for her based on her relationship to Norman (the Normal-type Gym Leader), Brandon, and...that other kid, the one with the Ralts. I think his name was Wally. To me, she was a strong, independent girl...and then I played Sapphire as the boy, only to find out that she was really cliche and girly. Kinda sucked, you know? But I could always go back to play Ruby if I wanted, and keep ahold of the character I'd constructed. This doesn't mean mute protagonists are the only ones with this luxury; Fox is a prime example of a character who speaks frequently, but his personality was still open for definition in Star Fox and Star Fox 64. We knew the scope of his problems: he has to stop Andross and avenge his father's death. But even with the latter in mind, we never hear that much about Fox's daddy issues in-game, short of the opening narrative (which you don't necessarily need to know to play the game and can be skipped) and a few pieces of dialog from Peppy. It's an action game - an on-rails shooter. We want to get on our rails, we want to shoot things! We don't want to be burdened down with problems that are ancillary to our goal of blowing stuff up, especially if it breaks up the gameplay with five-minute cutscenes. There's nothing wrong with a silent character having personality quirks, either. Just look at Luigi or Wario: when they're the protagonists, they don't actually say anything, but they have strong presence and much more clearly-defined templates. Mario's altruism and Link's courage are well and good; Luigi's cowardice and Wario's greed are awesome. In this case it's not so much projecting on to the protagonist as relating to them, but projection is still possible, and you are ultimately connecting. Luigi and Wario have motivation, and we can get behind that to some extent or another. Hell, one of my favorite games manages to find the perfect balance between personality and gameplay; in Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2, the entire story is told while you're actually playing the game. Sure, there's extra stuff if you know where to look, such as the (skippable) opening cutscenes or the (optional) The Sacrifice comic on Valve's website, but that's all icing. If you don't have the patience to watch the cutscenes or read the comic, you're only losing out on flavor; everything you need to know is exposited via character dialog and (if you want to take the time to read it) graffiti left in each Safe Room. Furthermore, each Survivor is given their own personality; each one interacts with this new Zombie Apocalypse world differently. Which one you play as doesn't make a bit of difference, but if you prefer Ellis' goofy, childlike attitude or Bill's gruff, veteran perspective, you're free to choose either way. Personally, I'm a Francis man myself; I can relate to a person who hates everything. This is the nirvana of action gaming: interesting, relatable characters who are easy to empathize and connect with, and a fascinating narrative that doesn't hamper gameplay. Besides, despite how each character acts, your goal is always the same: survive. (I'm not sure you could really count Master Chief as a silent protagonist, Fry... he has a decent amount of spoken lines in most of the games, and he has a more fleshed-out past than most video game characters in general ) Technically speaking, you're correct as Master Chief does have spoken lines, but they're infrequent and add little to the current scenario that more interesting characters like Sgt. Johnson or Cortana could exposit. Likewise, we learn little of the Chief's nature via these snippets of dialog short of what's expected of him (which in and of itself is standard fare); this said, I'm more inclined to put him in the "silent protagonist" crowd...though I do like the term "character canvas." For Star Fox, I was a big fan of Benimaru Itoh's comic that appeared in Nintendo Power in 1993, and it portrayed Fox as a slightly hot-headed, risk-taking swashbuckler, so I guess it wasn't jarring for me when the games followed through on that. This fits well with my point on externally-told lore. Canonical-yet-optional storytelling methods, such as this particular Star Fox comic, the later Farewell, Beloved Falco, the Metroid manga and Left 4 Dead's The Sacrifice are perfect material for the fan who wants more vs. the fan who couldn't care less. You don't lose anything necessary for enjoying the game and its' narrative. They're just enjoyable romps that further explore the universes these games take place in. In reading Farewell, Beloved Falco, it was delightful reading about why Falco left Star Fox. In Star Fox Adventures, I didn't care why he'd gone; I just wanted him back, though I doubt even his presence could have saved the game. That's a crucial difference between a visual medium like comics and an interactive medium like video games (in particular action games). Okay, I'm a little confused. Is there a game that doesn't do this? I agree completely with what you said, I'm just not sure where it'd be an issue, unless it was a game with no playable characters. Again, give Left 4 Dead a shot.  My opinions on Sunshine and Galaxy were the opposite. Galaxy remains one of the most confusing video games I've ever played. There's a story, but damned if I can figure out what it is. At the end of the game everything gets destroyed, but then a baby cries for a while and giant Rosalina explains the big bang, and then... Mario wakes up back home and says hello to the galaxy? Um, what? I was never confused about what was going on in Sunshine, and it's still the Mario platformer that immersed me the most in its world. Honestly, my biggest issue with Sunshine - short of the awkward camera, but we're not here to pick apart gameplay so acutely - is that it takes too long for me to actually start playing. Just as I didn't care why Falco was gone in Star Fox Adventures, I didn't care about why Mario was going to Isle Delfino ("going on vacation" can be told without an introductory cutscene), or why the Piantas were retarded and thought that a silhouette in a blurry picture is enough to incriminate Mario. I just want to start jumping around and exploring with the awesome platforming-enhancing water pack. ;D Besides, and personally speaking, Mario games are at their strongest when they make the least sense, clearly defined or otherwise. Really, it all boils down to rescuing Peach or collecting Magic MacGuffins anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jan 12, 2011 16:08:13 GMT -5
We're at cross-purposes again I see. I was talking about how much control you are given to the character before being exposed to the plot... Not the quality of the overall plot or whether you control the character at all.
Think of it like this: When writing a novel or screenplay you have to set up the tone, the setting and the characters of the story, and it's very easy to leave the reader confused from the start or disinterested in what's happening if you get this bit wrong. The plot could be a work of art, but set it up badly and nobody cares.
In videogames, the setup process has to be different to that of any other storytelling medium, because the player determines the protagonist's outcomes, and the player experiences emotions linked to the story first-hand rather than sympathetically for a character on screen. If you don't set up that relationship then you end up with confusion and disinterest.
As for when this happens... I am talking exclusively about the very start of the game. After you press START on the title screen and select a save file, what comes next should not be important plot or character development, but no more than a little scene-setting followed by controlling the main character... and that can be followed by, or intertwined with, plot and character development later on.
Of course there's more to story in games overall, but this seems such a fundamental thing... and it helps to explain why some classic games are still more engaging and exciting than some modern games.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jan 12, 2011 16:37:14 GMT -5
Ah, well this is just a difference in our playing styles. I need to know why my character is doing what they're doing. Video games have always had an opening story, it's just that you used to have to read the manual to see it. And I'm the type of person who would always read the story in the manual first so that I'd understand what was going on, because that's the only way I could fully enjoy it. Case in point - Sonic Colours. That game has an opening cutscene, but you have to play through a couple of stages before you get to it. I couldn't enjoy those stages, because I spent the entire time thinking "Are they going to explain why there is a theme park in space and why I am destroying it?" Without that explanation, I'm just doing something really meaningless, and I can't care about it. I always have a problem with Pokémon games when I first get them. Before you beat the Elite Four, it's a very linear experience, going from Gym to Gym... I couldn't care less about Gyms. If I had the option I'd probably beat them after I'd caught most of the Pokémon and put together a team I like, but I can't do that. It'd be okay if the protagonist showed some desire to do it, because then I could get behind that, but they don't. They don't care, so I don't have a reason to care... so the game takes my hand and leads me through all these annoying chores before I get to the post-game, which is the part I actually enjoy. That's a game where, for me, having a silent protagonist really hurts my experience with it (though I would prefer to keep the silent protagonist and have a more open world from the beginning). Besides, and personally speaking, Mario games are at their strongest when they make the least sense, clearly defined or otherwise. Really, it all boils down to rescuing Peach or collecting Magic MacGuffins anyway. I'm okay with them not making a great deal of sense, but Galaxy's ending reeked of everything I hate about recent Final Fantasy games. It felt like it was going for something grand and meaningful, but that they'd forgotten to include enough information to let anyone other than the creators understand it. I hated it. Galaxy 2, on the other hand, had a fantastic ending. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jan 12, 2011 17:13:16 GMT -5
One more quick point before rubbing myself on Tei's post... The "blank slate" character or "silent protagonist" that I have mentioned is just an easy way to maintain a connection between player and avatar. It's a lot harder to have a talkative, opinionated character with whom the player - ALL players - can relate to. There's nothing wrong with a silent character having personality quirks, either. Just look at Luigi or Wario: when they're the protagonists, they don't actually say anything, but they have strong presence and much more clearly-defined templates. This is an important point. Wario is greedy, gross and brutish, and he makes a great secondary character with 100 times the personality of Mario. When he's playable, much of this is implied through animation, sound and - most importantly - the gameplay mechanics themselves. The player is showered with coins, given keys to hidden treasures and garlic to power up, and a million things to break with Wario's burly arm. Same goes for Luigi. Luigi's Mansion used Luigi's cowardice not only as a gameplay mechanic, but the basis for the entire game. Canonical-yet-optional storytelling methods, such as this particular Star Fox comic, the later Farewell, Beloved Falco, the Metroid manga and Left 4 Dead's The Sacrifice are perfect material for the fan who wants more vs. the fan who couldn't care less. Here we have a traditional storytelling medium. I enjoyed the Star Fox and Metroid comics, but as comics, they can do things that even a novelisation couldn't get away with, such as visual cues and comic relief. If they were made into games, they would be jarring. However, they also prove Kirbychu right about how the characters were written in Command and Other M. While their personalities come through in the comics, they're not at odds with how they appeared in the games. The Metroid comic paints Samus as a woman trying to be strong, but learning to control her emotions... and even armed with that canonical comic, you would still think Samus in Other M is whiney and over-emotional. I believe this is why movies of videogames rarely, if ever, work out. Well, that and they're usually cheesy shlock of the lowest calibre... In Star Fox Adventures, I didn't care why he'd gone; I just wanted him back, though I doubt even his presence could have saved the game. I take it you didn't beat the game then? His presence didn't save it  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jan 12, 2011 17:56:21 GMT -5
Actually, to add to another point here... This fits well with my point on externally-told lore. Canonical-yet-optional storytelling methods, such as this particular Star Fox comic, the later Farewell, Beloved Falco, the Metroid manga and Left 4 Dead's The Sacrifice are perfect material for the fan who wants more vs. the fan who couldn't care less. I fall somewhere between these two camps. I'm a fan who wants more but not enough to buy extra material to get it. Excluding story from the games and forcing those who want it to buy comics or DVDs isn't a fair compromise when compared to, say, letting people who don't care skip the cutscenes. This occurred to me earlier, but I'd forgotten until my girlfriend said the same thing, but I think the more story vs. more gameplay thing is, at least in part, a generational divide. I don't know about you, TEi, but I know that I came to gaming a while after Fry did. Since I was born in '86, the 16-bit era was already well underway when I was old enough to get involved, and by then cutscenes and dialogue were becoming more common. Most of my favourite childhood games had pretty lengthy intro sequences, like Toejam & Earl. It just seems natural to me because of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Jan 12, 2011 18:34:13 GMT -5
rubbing myself on Tei's post...  *ahem* Sorry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2011 18:38:36 GMT -5
In Star Fox Adventures, I didn't care why he'd gone; I just wanted him back, though I doubt even his presence could have saved the game. I take it you didn't beat the game then? His presence didn't save it Poor phrasing on my part; should have said "doubted," rather than "doubt." Yeah, I beat the game, and Falco's last-minute inclusion was as much of a dick-punch as the big confrontation with General Scales being left at the curb for Andross. X( Actually, to add to another point here... This fits well with my point on externally-told lore. Canonical-yet-optional storytelling methods, such as this particular Star Fox comic, the later Farewell, Beloved Falco, the Metroid manga and Left 4 Dead's The Sacrifice are perfect material for the fan who wants more vs. the fan who couldn't care less. I fall somewhere between these two camps. I'm a fan who wants more but not enough to buy extra material to get it. Excluding story from the games and forcing those who want it to buy comics or DVDs isn't a fair compromise when compared to, say, letting people who don't care skip the cutscenes. This occurred to me earlier, but I'd forgotten until my girlfriend said the same thing, but I think the more story vs. more gameplay thing is, at least in part, a generational divide. I don't know about you, TEi, but I know that I came to gaming a while after Fry did. Since I was born in '86, the 16-bit era was already well underway when I was old enough to get involved, and by then cutscenes and dialogue were becoming more common. Most of my favourite childhood games had pretty lengthy intro sequences, like Toejam & Earl. It just seems natural to me because of that. Unfortunately, my gaming experiences up to the N64 were primarily with handhelds. (My folks were cruel and wouldn't let me have a proper console, sadface.) I guess that puts me closer to Fry, since I'd had the Gameboy and Gamegear for as far back as I can remember, but all the same. Anyway, my point regarding cutscenes was that, if it's lore, skippable, and not necessary to understand what's going on while playing the game, then it's no big deal. If I'm about to go balls-deep into an action game, but am first expected to watch a cutscene to understand what the hell I'm doing, the momentum has already been broken up. For instance, I like how Sonic Colors literally had no opening scene, but I didn't like having the action broken up with cutscenes. I'll concede that cutscenes are necessary in gaming, but there's an apt time and place to use them; action games generally are not it. They're not evil or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jan 12, 2011 18:58:04 GMT -5
I only really play action games, aside from Pokémon, but I'll generally take as much cutscene as possible. I even go back to games I've finished pretty regularly just to watch the cutscenes again. I know there were plenty of times that I fired up Mario Power Tennis just to watch the opening, with no intention of actually playing the game.
I guess to me cutscenes are like little rewards. They never get in the way of my enjoyment, they just pop up occasionally as little surprises that give me a little break while giving me something fun to look at. I always feel a little disappointed once I know I've seen them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on Jan 12, 2011 23:11:12 GMT -5
First of all, let me take this opportunity to say that I absolutely hate lengthy opening cutscenes, however its less to do with story, and more because they prevent me from playing the game I just bought. By far the worst offender for me was Fear on the 360, which I bought on a whim knowing nothing about. I was subjected to a completely unskippable (I tried. Oh lord, how I tried) cutscene which I swear was about half hour long, only for me to play the game for 10 minutes, realise I hated it, and never play it again. Thats 30 minutes of my life I'm not getting back. Thanks Fear, I was a half hour away from curing Cancer, but I guess that'll never happen now.
Going on to the topic of story, I find it interesting that Kirbychu says how he can't get involved in playing a game until he knows about the characters / the settings / etc, because its the exact opposite for me. Until I'm able to take control of my character, and get to know him/her through my own actions (so to speak), I could not give two shits about hearing more about them.
I liken it to real life, really. If I meet someone new, I need to share experiences with them to get to like them. After that then sure, I'll happily hear about their past, because I've already formed my own connection with them, but if a stranger came up to me and told me the story of his life, I'd really struggle to care. Fryguy kept mentioning characters making personal connections, and for me it really hits true - I need to 'share experiences' with my character, by actually taking control of them, for me to actually like the character. Once I like the character, however, I can take most cutscenes and story you can throw it me. I just want to make that connection first.
To me, its incredibly different to movies, where I need to know the character. If you had a movie like, say, Die Hard, but started with just the action scenes, I'd be disinterested - its only through knowing the characters that I can relate to this action. Perhaps the difference between myself and kirbychu comes from what we expect games to be - if kirbychu expects, as I get the feeling he does, that games should be treated like movies, then the approach of story then gameplay makes sense. Whereas I, to be honest, would more associate gaming with something like a toy, where I share experiences with them by playing [with] them, and then I fill in things like backstory (perhaps it is provided to me, perhaps I make it up myself) afterwards, and so, the gameplay then story approach works for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jan 13, 2011 3:45:08 GMT -5
There are many devices like Fryguy said to let us know about the character. Sometimes you learn about him little by little throughout the story.
But for me its not about our main hero, its about everything else. Mario RPGs convinced me that a story in a Mario game works. Mario has no personality but I don't care. It's everyone else I love.
This is why Iiked Sunshine, the world was full of characters dancing and singing and living their lives. I saw Bowser emote with his son. It was the first time I actually felt for the guy. (actually that's a lie, it was Paper Mario)
But yes I want a story and characters that have personality. But I don't care for MY character to be that way.
There was a time when I loved the Banjo-Kazooie series more than Mario... GASP!
The world was so alive, every character had a personality. I wanted to explore that world! Mario 64's world was fake, artificial, and boring.
Banjo-Tooie managed to progress the story and add a new conflict. Gruntilda is revived and she's killed Bottles! But there is no angst or hour long dramatic cutscene. Its something a little more complex than save the princess your sister. I guess that's why for a while I was impressed with the series more than Mario. Until... I played Paper Mario.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Jan 13, 2011 7:00:25 GMT -5
I should point out, there's a limit to what even I am willing to take from cutscenes, and I don't think that any video game cutscene should be more than about a minute long (longer if it's the ending or something, but still not too long).
But yeah, as games have become more cinematic, big-budget affairs I do look at them more like interactive movies. They're giving us everything a movie does, but we can run around and explore each scene, and in more and more games we can even influence the direction of the plot.
Over the last few years a few companies have been releasing related games around the same time as movies which don't actually follow the plot of the movie at all, and of the two of these I've played I liked the game's plot, direction, cinematics and in the case of one of them, acting a lot better than the movie's (I'm talking about The Simpsons Game vs. The Simpsons Movie and Batman: Arkham Asylum vs. The Dark Knight). I'm not sure exactly what my point was, but I just woke up, what do you expect.
|
|
|
|
Post by asiacatdogblue on Jul 20, 2011 13:36:31 GMT -5
Really, I have always thought that Mario games should do away with any form of plot, since people stop caring about it when it comes to Mario.
Really, all they just want to do is get from one opint to another in Mario.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Jul 20, 2011 19:01:31 GMT -5
^ Someone hasn't played any of the Paper Mario or Mario & Luigi subseries.
And really, you speak as though the regular Mario games have enough of a plot to actually throw away.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Jul 20, 2011 19:10:18 GMT -5
Also, do you really want another "Oh, Peach has been kidnapped, gotta save her!" kind of plotline again? Sure, it fits in games like New Super Mario Bros. where it's set as an homage to the older games. But when you have a REASON to rescue her, it makes the game more endearing. Otherwise, you have people making up their own plotlines (do I really want to rescue a spoiled bimbo who sleeps with a spiked dinosaur and had 8 children with him? Is there a reason to rescue her aside from the fact that all Mario gets is a tiny kiss on the nose? I don't think so.)
|
|
