Quote:

Original post by xycos Quote: Original post by Oluseyi Narrative remains secondary to action. In an RPG? Let me express my COMPLETE disagreement. I guess I can see playing action-RPGs or MMORPGs without a plot (hell, the plots in those are usually just as badly deeloped as in an action game), but in a console-style RPG with turn-based combat, I play for the story.

You can play for the orange-flavored popsicles if you want, it doesn't change the fact that the story merely exists to compel suckers like you to hand over more cash for the exact same play mechanics. Worse, since you could have gotten the story as a pure story - novel, comic, film - it covers up the atrocities of the "interactive" gameplay portions. It also helps stretch the game out to meet the obligatory "40 hours of gameplay!" marketing bullet, though most of those 40 hours are spent watching cutscenes.

It's a formula, and it clearly works. I mean, look at you! [smile]

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi You can play for the orange-flavored popsicles if you want, it doesn't change the fact that the story merely exists to compel suckers like you to hand over more cash for the exact same play mechanics. Worse, since you could have gotten the story as a pure story - novel, comic, film - it covers up the atrocities of the "interactive" gameplay portions. It also helps stretch the game out to meet the obligatory "40 hours of gameplay!" marketing bullet, though most of those 40 hours are spent watching cutscenes. It's a formula, and it clearly works. I mean, look at you! [smile]

The problem occurs rather in any genre when designers use a game focus more on the story as authors, than the possibilities for the player.

Sometimes stories are better put in other mediums rather than software--and sometimes there're not. Also, RPGs often allow the player to experience the story how they feel is fit. For example, Final Fantasy 7 may have rehashed similar gameplay mechanics as previous ones, but the magic (materia) system allowed players more flexibility to use characters how they liked.

...as for repeated "play mechanics", isn't that the major problem with the mainstream game industry? Lots of games have the same form of interactivity, with just better graphics tagged on. How many FPS play exactly the same way (use mouse to aim and shoot... arrows to move (or wasd)... CTF... shoot almost everything in sight...)? Not that they're not great games (many are), but what makes someone buy it when it's exactly the same to what they have? Do higher polygon counts and graphics make games more fun? It does help with emersing the player in the environment, but that won't hold if they've done everything there before. Stories help to attach a player to the world and gives them the ability to experience something that they may not be able to otherwise. RPGs allow the player to become part of the world, that's what makes them different from books.

The point is very true however. If commercial games aren't going to test out bizarre ideas, who better than the independents?

[Edited by - mako_5 on December 30, 2005 11:37:53 PM]

A few weeks ago I bought both ICO and Dark Cloud 2.

ICO has simple gameplay mechanics is rather short and the main goal is to rescue a princess (or at least escape from a cursed castle along with a princess).

Dark Cloud 2, however has a wide variety of complicated gameplay mechanics, is very long, and the goal is to kill some Mustacioed villain who wants to erase history. It has a Princess who wields a sword and uses magic... even though she is supposed to come from 100 years in the future and the male lead from the present uses a gun which is way easier to use than either her sword or her magic.

However, I really enjoy some of the mini-games in Dark Cloud 2 (like fishing, building , and the golf-like game Spherea) I really think Dark Cloud would have been better if they made it more like Harvest Moon than like Final Fantasy.

I think its primarily as stated before that "damsel in distress" is a real stock plot and the fact its only been in the last 5-10 years that developers have bothers to hire writers for games that aren’t completely story orientated. Also a lot of new games are inspired by old games.

Quote:

Original post by Bezben Story isn't necessary for a good game, but it makes all the difference between a good game and a spectacular one. Deus Ex vs Diablo for example Diablos run of the mill story and engrossing gameplay make for a damn good game, but Deus Exs fantastic storyline and genius gameplay are unbeatable.

Don't forget it can go the other way just as easily. Metroid Fusion wasn't very good due to the heavy story. The story forced your path and you had almost no opportunity to explore, which completely defeated the point of the game.

Stop rescuing princesses??!!

Rescuing princesses isn't so common (anymore). What's better than slicing-up bad guys on your quest to save the captured princess? If you're playing RPGs in the first place, you gotto love it. It never gets old. This storyline is every kid's (big kid's) fantasy, which is what made games so appealing in the first place. Before this, there wasn't much more than Pong and SpaceInvaders, which require a massive imagination to really see any storyline to those games.

You said you play PS2 and RPGs... Get Final Fantasy X and instead of saving a princess, you can defeat Sin.

Oh, and male gamers don't outnumber girl gamers by as much as you seem to think. It just depends where (on the globe) you're talking about. They're on the rise.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a princess that needs saving!

Quote:

Original post by xycosI play for the story.

I like RPG's, although personally I could never get myself to play a game for the story. I don't even read novels for the story. All of my books are technical...

Anyway, I think the stories in games need to be more relevant to the game play and game progression. The story should lead the player to the hints necessary to pass the game. Also more games should have branching stories lines instead of strict linear paths. If you combine those two, then a smart player that figures out the plot earlier can act on the knowledge and change the game. Of course for that to happen the player needs to freemdom to go outside of the fixed linear path.

Here's an example. A kingdom is being constantly attacked by a dragon and the player has just learned where the dragon lives. The player also gets a hint that the dragons attack because of some artifact hidden in the town that no else knows about. The player can go through the obvious path and try to slay the dragon only to find a nest of baby dragons and busy mother who's currently destroying more of the town. Or the player can go the less obvious path and find the artifact and move it out of the city thus preventing the destruction and changing the story.

That is what I would see as a truley interactive and relevant story, as opposed to a game + a random (regardless of how "good" it is) tale to justify it all.

The story should do more than just explain what just happened. Explaining what just happened is easy on writers (hindsight is 20/20) and does little to help the player. Instead the story should lend the player the chance to prempt the current flow of events and change them.

I don't see the big deal with the princess thing, its no different then "get the golden sword" or "kill diablo". Its an excuse to slash through waves and waves of little rather poorly armed (you'd think they'd protect the princess/sword/diablo better) critters.

Wait do we need an excuse to slaughter all kinds of virtual critters?

The whole point of games is fun, and the ability to do something you cannot do in real life. I seriously doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to carve up 10,000 zombies/skeletons with a never dulling sword, or rescue a princess for that matter (she'd probably slap me anyways) so these elements while somewhat tired are still good enough entertainment to kill an hour or two.

However on the topic of girl oriented games, I find the same problem with games for girls played by guys that girls find with games for guys. Take FFX-2 everything was flowery and bubbley (ok this is a bad example because I can't see more then a hand full of girls who would enjoy treated to the same biased crap that exists in male games (girls are flowery and bubbley and up beat and generally don't have a brain cell between em --note I'm not serious this is the feeling that "girl oriented games give me.)) But anyways FFX-2 seemed to be very stereotypical girl stuff flowers, and play dress up (dress spheres?) and BLAH.

I can't see how a girl could enjoy that, I'd think girls would want to play games that treat them like people, not like flowery powderpuff bubble gum chewers. I could be wrong after all, I'm not a girl.

Hmm...I can think of two tough females, the Major from "Ghost In The Shell" PS2 and Mint from 'Threads Of Fate" PS1 both kick butt and are strong main characters.