The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sorry, but this isn't about getting an import copy of the new Zelda at all costs - it's actually about why we play games. When I say games in this topic, I'm being quite specific - I mean the story games. Not the Pokemons, or the Pro Evolution Soccers, but the Metal Gear Solids, the Splinter Cells, the Mario Sunshines. When we're sitting there, during a level...what are we doing it for? The fun of completing the objective, or the cut-scene you get as a reward?
I got thinking about this during a quick blast at Ratchet and Clank. The way the story's told isn't your conventional level, movie, level layout, but rather you pick up small infobots which show you snippets of story, be it newscasts, messages from Emperor Drek or another character. Anyhow, I was playing the hoverboard race (yes I know I'm not very far) and was looking forward to my next infobot. I'm sure this is attributed in part to my frustratingly bad hoverboarding skills, but also because I'm quite enjoying the story. It's not that complicated, in fact it's all a bit like a preview to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - a planet needs to be built for the rich and famous, and in order to make it perfect all the other planets need huge chunks ripped out of them. The story moves along in an array of different ways as I've mentioned, and most of the scenes are genuinely funny. Out of frustration I left that planet, and went to another, and soon found myself sucking up small monsters and blasting them at other, bigger monsters, having a whale of a time. I wasn't working towards a new infobot, just enjoying myself. So, what should developers try to involve you in more, the game as a whole or what you're doing right this second to get this key, or flick that switch?
Think back to GoldenEye (as many reviewers have been doing recently, what with EA's latest Bond release). Most people had already seen the film, but I hadn't. I'll be hoenst - the story didn't draw me in that much. Traditionally, going to a James Bond film is about watching James Bond, not trying to unravel the complicated entwined strands of double crossing and undercover work. Not breaking type, GoldenEye was brilliant because the missions really made you feel like you were 007, trying to save the world from yet more evil Russians. Every security camera was potential armageddon, averted only by a bullet from a silenced pistol. And don't tell me you didn't ease onto the edge of your seat when you peered over the edge in Facility and saw that guard in the bog. It's a shining example of how it didn't matter why you were doing something; you just HAD to, because it sounded such jolly good fun, sneaking around and shooting people. And, really it was.
Thing is, that was a long time ago. Now, this is the time of the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 was one of the most anticipated games this generation, and when it arrived many were less than pleased with the cut-scene heavy storyline. Many have called it a semi-interactive film, with an overblown B-movie plot with bosses, power hungry maniacs, double agents and a stupidly illogical twist at the end. Now Wednesday sees one of the most expensive games ever, The Getaway, hit the shops (all of them except for Curries, which it's evidently already hit). Employing actors, a script writer, even creating a whole new dimension for motion capturing, Team Soho have attempted to make another extremely cinematic game, full of swearing, cockney rhyming slang and fat men smoking cigars. But is it really what we want? Look across to the new GTA and where The Getaway is grey, serious and decked out in a Saville Row suit, Vice City is vibrant with colour, standing over a pile of dead bodies whilst holding a chainsaw and wearing a hawaiin shirt. There is a story, but it's more about the fun you have whilst rushing about killing gang members, or going into strip clubs.
However, I must try not to digress. This is not another realism vs fantasy post, this is about content and context. Think of this example: you're watching the first Harry Potter film, and it's the Quidditch Match. There's a lot of things going on, rivalries with students and nastiness from other, older sources. But are you enjoying the crazy flying sequences, the cheering of the crowd and the atmosphere of it all...or are you wondering what will happen at the end of it all, and what it will mean for Harry, Malfoy, Snape et al? Usually, the answer will be the former, and I have to say I agree. Time Crisis 2, contrary to popular belief, does have a plot...but nobody cares, they just like the barrel shooting, boss beating mayhem. Games like Deus Ex and Metroid Prime have optional extras to add on to the plot, but they also have involving levels that do their best to grab you undivided attention. That, in my view, is the best way to do it. Not only does it cater for all campers, it gives a reason to play through again. It's a bit like going to Paris; once to see all the scenery, buy some wine and go in the Eiffel Tower, and then again next year to do all the clever stuff like visit the countryside and have a picnic, look round The Louvre, and other high-brow stuff that only informed Parisians know about.
But if you're a plot heavy game, don't worry. I don't neccessarily hate you. Like I said, Ratchet and Clank's story has me enthralled, and although it's not essential, I'm wondering what will happen to Tommy at the end of Vice City. Gameplay that's exciting, or tricky, or open-ended, or whatever is always the biggest selling point for any true gamer. Having a 'bigger picture' can detract (MGS2) but it can also irresistibly attract (The Getaway?). So I think that the means should be the most important thing when you're playing a game. Think about the ends when the CG kicks in.
Thanks for reading. Your views on the subject are welcome to be posted in here.
-El Blokey
I got thinking about this during a quick blast at Ratchet and Clank. The way the story's told isn't your conventional level, movie, level layout, but rather you pick up small infobots which show you snippets of story, be it newscasts, messages from Emperor Drek or another character. Anyhow, I was playing the hoverboard race (yes I know I'm not very far) and was looking forward to my next infobot. I'm sure this is attributed in part to my frustratingly bad hoverboarding skills, but also because I'm quite enjoying the story. It's not that complicated, in fact it's all a bit like a preview to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - a planet needs to be built for the rich and famous, and in order to make it perfect all the other planets need huge chunks ripped out of them. The story moves along in an array of different ways as I've mentioned, and most of the scenes are genuinely funny. Out of frustration I left that planet, and went to another, and soon found myself sucking up small monsters and blasting them at other, bigger monsters, having a whale of a time. I wasn't working towards a new infobot, just enjoying myself. So, what should developers try to involve you in more, the game as a whole or what you're doing right this second to get this key, or flick that switch?
Think back to GoldenEye (as many reviewers have been doing recently, what with EA's latest Bond release). Most people had already seen the film, but I hadn't. I'll be hoenst - the story didn't draw me in that much. Traditionally, going to a James Bond film is about watching James Bond, not trying to unravel the complicated entwined strands of double crossing and undercover work. Not breaking type, GoldenEye was brilliant because the missions really made you feel like you were 007, trying to save the world from yet more evil Russians. Every security camera was potential armageddon, averted only by a bullet from a silenced pistol. And don't tell me you didn't ease onto the edge of your seat when you peered over the edge in Facility and saw that guard in the bog. It's a shining example of how it didn't matter why you were doing something; you just HAD to, because it sounded such jolly good fun, sneaking around and shooting people. And, really it was.
Thing is, that was a long time ago. Now, this is the time of the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 was one of the most anticipated games this generation, and when it arrived many were less than pleased with the cut-scene heavy storyline. Many have called it a semi-interactive film, with an overblown B-movie plot with bosses, power hungry maniacs, double agents and a stupidly illogical twist at the end. Now Wednesday sees one of the most expensive games ever, The Getaway, hit the shops (all of them except for Curries, which it's evidently already hit). Employing actors, a script writer, even creating a whole new dimension for motion capturing, Team Soho have attempted to make another extremely cinematic game, full of swearing, cockney rhyming slang and fat men smoking cigars. But is it really what we want? Look across to the new GTA and where The Getaway is grey, serious and decked out in a Saville Row suit, Vice City is vibrant with colour, standing over a pile of dead bodies whilst holding a chainsaw and wearing a hawaiin shirt. There is a story, but it's more about the fun you have whilst rushing about killing gang members, or going into strip clubs.
However, I must try not to digress. This is not another realism vs fantasy post, this is about content and context. Think of this example: you're watching the first Harry Potter film, and it's the Quidditch Match. There's a lot of things going on, rivalries with students and nastiness from other, older sources. But are you enjoying the crazy flying sequences, the cheering of the crowd and the atmosphere of it all...or are you wondering what will happen at the end of it all, and what it will mean for Harry, Malfoy, Snape et al? Usually, the answer will be the former, and I have to say I agree. Time Crisis 2, contrary to popular belief, does have a plot...but nobody cares, they just like the barrel shooting, boss beating mayhem. Games like Deus Ex and Metroid Prime have optional extras to add on to the plot, but they also have involving levels that do their best to grab you undivided attention. That, in my view, is the best way to do it. Not only does it cater for all campers, it gives a reason to play through again. It's a bit like going to Paris; once to see all the scenery, buy some wine and go in the Eiffel Tower, and then again next year to do all the clever stuff like visit the countryside and have a picnic, look round The Louvre, and other high-brow stuff that only informed Parisians know about.
But if you're a plot heavy game, don't worry. I don't neccessarily hate you. Like I said, Ratchet and Clank's story has me enthralled, and although it's not essential, I'm wondering what will happen to Tommy at the end of Vice City. Gameplay that's exciting, or tricky, or open-ended, or whatever is always the biggest selling point for any true gamer. Having a 'bigger picture' can detract (MGS2) but it can also irresistibly attract (The Getaway?). So I think that the means should be the most important thing when you're playing a game. Think about the ends when the CG kicks in.
Thanks for reading. Your views on the subject are welcome to be posted in here.
-El Blokey
I always have trouble being interested in the plot of anything that's not grounded in real life, like Ratchet And Clank, Mario e.t.c Give me Splinter Cell, MGS2 e.t.c and I'll happily play them through because they interest me, but stuff like Crash Bandicoot e.t.c. I just cannot get into. I don't mind the no plot stuff - Waverace and THPS3 on GC are great games.
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
I agree with a lot you were saying there, moreabout the semi-film games (which was integrated into one of my topics) but their are some games which you play almost solely to find out more about the plot (Final Fantasy anyone?) but it is an interesting point you raise. Yes, interesting, and that hoverboard race in R&C rules.
Sorry, but this isn't about getting an import copy of the new Zelda at all costs - it's actually about why we play games. When I say games in this topic, I'm being quite specific - I mean the story games. Not the Pokemons, or the Pro Evolution Soccers, but the Metal Gear Solids, the Splinter Cells, the Mario Sunshines. When we're sitting there, during a level...what are we doing it for? The fun of completing the objective, or the cut-scene you get as a reward?
I got thinking about this during a quick blast at Ratchet and Clank. The way the story's told isn't your conventional level, movie, level layout, but rather you pick up small infobots which show you snippets of story, be it newscasts, messages from Emperor Drek or another character. Anyhow, I was playing the hoverboard race (yes I know I'm not very far) and was looking forward to my next infobot. I'm sure this is attributed in part to my frustratingly bad hoverboarding skills, but also because I'm quite enjoying the story. It's not that complicated, in fact it's all a bit like a preview to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - a planet needs to be built for the rich and famous, and in order to make it perfect all the other planets need huge chunks ripped out of them. The story moves along in an array of different ways as I've mentioned, and most of the scenes are genuinely funny. Out of frustration I left that planet, and went to another, and soon found myself sucking up small monsters and blasting them at other, bigger monsters, having a whale of a time. I wasn't working towards a new infobot, just enjoying myself. So, what should developers try to involve you in more, the game as a whole or what you're doing right this second to get this key, or flick that switch?
Think back to GoldenEye (as many reviewers have been doing recently, what with EA's latest Bond release). Most people had already seen the film, but I hadn't. I'll be hoenst - the story didn't draw me in that much. Traditionally, going to a James Bond film is about watching James Bond, not trying to unravel the complicated entwined strands of double crossing and undercover work. Not breaking type, GoldenEye was brilliant because the missions really made you feel like you were 007, trying to save the world from yet more evil Russians. Every security camera was potential armageddon, averted only by a bullet from a silenced pistol. And don't tell me you didn't ease onto the edge of your seat when you peered over the edge in Facility and saw that guard in the bog. It's a shining example of how it didn't matter why you were doing something; you just HAD to, because it sounded such jolly good fun, sneaking around and shooting people. And, really it was.
Thing is, that was a long time ago. Now, this is the time of the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 was one of the most anticipated games this generation, and when it arrived many were less than pleased with the cut-scene heavy storyline. Many have called it a semi-interactive film, with an overblown B-movie plot with bosses, power hungry maniacs, double agents and a stupidly illogical twist at the end. Now Wednesday sees one of the most expensive games ever, The Getaway, hit the shops (all of them except for Curries, which it's evidently already hit). Employing actors, a script writer, even creating a whole new dimension for motion capturing, Team Soho have attempted to make another extremely cinematic game, full of swearing, cockney rhyming slang and fat men smoking cigars. But is it really what we want? Look across to the new GTA and where The Getaway is grey, serious and decked out in a Saville Row suit, Vice City is vibrant with colour, standing over a pile of dead bodies whilst holding a chainsaw and wearing a hawaiin shirt. There is a story, but it's more about the fun you have whilst rushing about killing gang members, or going into strip clubs.
However, I must try not to digress. This is not another realism vs fantasy post, this is about content and context. Think of this example: you're watching the first Harry Potter film, and it's the Quidditch Match. There's a lot of things going on, rivalries with students and nastiness from other, older sources. But are you enjoying the crazy flying sequences, the cheering of the crowd and the atmosphere of it all...or are you wondering what will happen at the end of it all, and what it will mean for Harry, Malfoy, Snape et al? Usually, the answer will be the former, and I have to say I agree. Time Crisis 2, contrary to popular belief, does have a plot...but nobody cares, they just like the barrel shooting, boss beating mayhem. Games like Deus Ex and Metroid Prime have optional extras to add on to the plot, but they also have involving levels that do their best to grab you undivided attention. That, in my view, is the best way to do it. Not only does it cater for all campers, it gives a reason to play through again. It's a bit like going to Paris; once to see all the scenery, buy some wine and go in the Eiffel Tower, and then again next year to do all the clever stuff like visit the countryside and have a picnic, look round The Louvre, and other high-brow stuff that only informed Parisians know about.
But if you're a plot heavy game, don't worry. I don't neccessarily hate you. Like I said, Ratchet and Clank's story has me enthralled, and although it's not essential, I'm wondering what will happen to Tommy at the end of Vice City. Gameplay that's exciting, or tricky, or open-ended, or whatever is always the biggest selling point for any true gamer. Having a 'bigger picture' can detract (MGS2) but it can also irresistibly attract (The Getaway?). So I think that the means should be the most important thing when you're playing a game. Think about the ends when the CG kicks in.
Thanks for reading. Your views on the subject are welcome to be posted in here.
-El Blokey
I got thinking about this during a quick blast at Ratchet and Clank. The way the story's told isn't your conventional level, movie, level layout, but rather you pick up small infobots which show you snippets of story, be it newscasts, messages from Emperor Drek or another character. Anyhow, I was playing the hoverboard race (yes I know I'm not very far) and was looking forward to my next infobot. I'm sure this is attributed in part to my frustratingly bad hoverboarding skills, but also because I'm quite enjoying the story. It's not that complicated, in fact it's all a bit like a preview to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - a planet needs to be built for the rich and famous, and in order to make it perfect all the other planets need huge chunks ripped out of them. The story moves along in an array of different ways as I've mentioned, and most of the scenes are genuinely funny. Out of frustration I left that planet, and went to another, and soon found myself sucking up small monsters and blasting them at other, bigger monsters, having a whale of a time. I wasn't working towards a new infobot, just enjoying myself. So, what should developers try to involve you in more, the game as a whole or what you're doing right this second to get this key, or flick that switch?
Think back to GoldenEye (as many reviewers have been doing recently, what with EA's latest Bond release). Most people had already seen the film, but I hadn't. I'll be hoenst - the story didn't draw me in that much. Traditionally, going to a James Bond film is about watching James Bond, not trying to unravel the complicated entwined strands of double crossing and undercover work. Not breaking type, GoldenEye was brilliant because the missions really made you feel like you were 007, trying to save the world from yet more evil Russians. Every security camera was potential armageddon, averted only by a bullet from a silenced pistol. And don't tell me you didn't ease onto the edge of your seat when you peered over the edge in Facility and saw that guard in the bog. It's a shining example of how it didn't matter why you were doing something; you just HAD to, because it sounded such jolly good fun, sneaking around and shooting people. And, really it was.
Thing is, that was a long time ago. Now, this is the time of the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 was one of the most anticipated games this generation, and when it arrived many were less than pleased with the cut-scene heavy storyline. Many have called it a semi-interactive film, with an overblown B-movie plot with bosses, power hungry maniacs, double agents and a stupidly illogical twist at the end. Now Wednesday sees one of the most expensive games ever, The Getaway, hit the shops (all of them except for Curries, which it's evidently already hit). Employing actors, a script writer, even creating a whole new dimension for motion capturing, Team Soho have attempted to make another extremely cinematic game, full of swearing, cockney rhyming slang and fat men smoking cigars. But is it really what we want? Look across to the new GTA and where The Getaway is grey, serious and decked out in a Saville Row suit, Vice City is vibrant with colour, standing over a pile of dead bodies whilst holding a chainsaw and wearing a hawaiin shirt. There is a story, but it's more about the fun you have whilst rushing about killing gang members, or going into strip clubs.
However, I must try not to digress. This is not another realism vs fantasy post, this is about content and context. Think of this example: you're watching the first Harry Potter film, and it's the Quidditch Match. There's a lot of things going on, rivalries with students and nastiness from other, older sources. But are you enjoying the crazy flying sequences, the cheering of the crowd and the atmosphere of it all...or are you wondering what will happen at the end of it all, and what it will mean for Harry, Malfoy, Snape et al? Usually, the answer will be the former, and I have to say I agree. Time Crisis 2, contrary to popular belief, does have a plot...but nobody cares, they just like the barrel shooting, boss beating mayhem. Games like Deus Ex and Metroid Prime have optional extras to add on to the plot, but they also have involving levels that do their best to grab you undivided attention. That, in my view, is the best way to do it. Not only does it cater for all campers, it gives a reason to play through again. It's a bit like going to Paris; once to see all the scenery, buy some wine and go in the Eiffel Tower, and then again next year to do all the clever stuff like visit the countryside and have a picnic, look round The Louvre, and other high-brow stuff that only informed Parisians know about.
But if you're a plot heavy game, don't worry. I don't neccessarily hate you. Like I said, Ratchet and Clank's story has me enthralled, and although it's not essential, I'm wondering what will happen to Tommy at the end of Vice City. Gameplay that's exciting, or tricky, or open-ended, or whatever is always the biggest selling point for any true gamer. Having a 'bigger picture' can detract (MGS2) but it can also irresistibly attract (The Getaway?). So I think that the means should be the most important thing when you're playing a game. Think about the ends when the CG kicks in.
Thanks for reading. Your views on the subject are welcome to be posted in here.
-El Blokey