The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Video games and movies are both rivals, Videos are an adventure while video games is an adventure which you control. But is the idea of a video games being an interactive movie the wrong way to go?
The problem with an interactive movie is the story is already set out and there is little room for you to manipulate this adventure. Wouldn't it be great if you are put more in control of the game.
How many of you would liked to of given Zelda a little slap when she asked for your help call her crazy go back to Kokiri forest and start up a little farm, when you get to the end of Nugget bridge in Pokemon and you are asked if you would like to join Team rocket how many of you wanted to say yes or in Perfect Dark wouldn't it be interesting if you would kill DR Carol and become an Agent for Datadyne rather than start the mission again.
But is a game where the player is put more in control of the way the game heads an actual possibility? Can developers do something like this?
Well the answer is yes as Nintendo are already working on it in the form of a game called Animal Forest. The idea is that you control a character who has no set adventure and that the life you lead with this person completley depends on the choices you make. The choices you make changes the world which you live in and your world will be completley unique to you and no one will have the same world as you. You can download your character on to a memory card and get him to explore other peoples worlds.
This is a story, an adventure which you create for yourself and gets rid of these linear adventures. Nintendo has declared that one day all games will be done like this.
But are they right are these types of games the future of gaming?
What do you think?
Here's to the future
Dringo
The problem with an interactive movie is the story is already set out and there is little room for you to manipulate this adventure. Wouldn't it be great if you are put more in control of the game.
How many of you would liked to of given Zelda a little slap when she asked for your help call her crazy go back to Kokiri forest and start up a little farm, when you get to the end of Nugget bridge in Pokemon and you are asked if you would like to join Team rocket how many of you wanted to say yes or in Perfect Dark wouldn't it be interesting if you would kill DR Carol and become an Agent for Datadyne rather than start the mission again.
But is a game where the player is put more in control of the way the game heads an actual possibility? Can developers do something like this?
Well the answer is yes as Nintendo are already working on it in the form of a game called Animal Forest. The idea is that you control a character who has no set adventure and that the life you lead with this person completley depends on the choices you make. The choices you make changes the world which you live in and your world will be completley unique to you and no one will have the same world as you. You can download your character on to a memory card and get him to explore other peoples worlds.
This is a story, an adventure which you create for yourself and gets rid of these linear adventures. Nintendo has declared that one day all games will be done like this.
But are they right are these types of games the future of gaming?
What do you think?
Here's to the future
Dringo
Page:
The problem with letting the player develop their own story, is a lack of imagination on the part of the player, combined with a lack of flexibility within the game boundaries.
There just isn't the processing power to develop a huge fantasy world, in which you can 'do whatever the fun you feel' (YMCA). In terms of a single player game there has to be boundaries to keep you heading towards your final goal, with Massively Multiplayer Online games that try to have no boundaries or set quests, they end up like interactive chat rooms, with people wandering around, talking to others, and not having to really do anything if they don't want to!
The way I can see gaming developing in terms of story, and you'll have to forgive me if you've heard this from me before, is as follows:
Lets take Zelda as an example. Link starts the game with a guest, lets say save Zelda from Gannon. To do this he must collect 8 items, each of which is held in a different dungeon. You can simply travel to each of these dungeons, collect the items then go face Gannn if you choose. This is very linear, and will please some people.
Whilst on your quest, you'll meet varios other characters that will hint at other things you can do. Maybe you'll meet a man that had something stolen from him, so you can go off to recover it for him, or meet a witch that needs some ingredients for a new spell.
As it stands there are many games that have these side quests, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference to the eventual outcome. You still have to save Zelda from Gannon.
But how about if doing various side quests would open up more possibilities in completing the game. I don't just mean different endings here, but completely different scenarios for the last stage of the game.
For instance, say the witch you supplied the ingredients for, turns out to be the ultimate evil, and she takes both Gannon and Zelda prisoner! What then?
Or what if the guy whose stolen property you recovered is so grateful, that he decides to follow you around for the rest of your adventure, so you've got the added challenge of keeping him alive too.
I think that games are more likely to develop this way in terms of storys because it will add massively to replay value, and makes the game more challenging, but it can still be rewarding to your casual gamer that doesn't have 40+ hours to devote to following the most difficult path, as he can simply take the game along it's most basic path.
There just isn't the processing power to develop a huge fantasy world, in which you can 'do whatever the fun you feel' (YMCA). In terms of a single player game there has to be boundaries to keep you heading towards your final goal, with Massively Multiplayer Online games that try to have no boundaries or set quests, they end up like interactive chat rooms, with people wandering around, talking to others, and not having to really do anything if they don't want to!
The way I can see gaming developing in terms of story, and you'll have to forgive me if you've heard this from me before, is as follows:
Lets take Zelda as an example. Link starts the game with a guest, lets say save Zelda from Gannon. To do this he must collect 8 items, each of which is held in a different dungeon. You can simply travel to each of these dungeons, collect the items then go face Gannn if you choose. This is very linear, and will please some people.
Whilst on your quest, you'll meet varios other characters that will hint at other things you can do. Maybe you'll meet a man that had something stolen from him, so you can go off to recover it for him, or meet a witch that needs some ingredients for a new spell.
As it stands there are many games that have these side quests, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference to the eventual outcome. You still have to save Zelda from Gannon.
But how about if doing various side quests would open up more possibilities in completing the game. I don't just mean different endings here, but completely different scenarios for the last stage of the game.
For instance, say the witch you supplied the ingredients for, turns out to be the ultimate evil, and she takes both Gannon and Zelda prisoner! What then?
Or what if the guy whose stolen property you recovered is so grateful, that he decides to follow you around for the rest of your adventure, so you've got the added challenge of keeping him alive too.
I think that games are more likely to develop this way in terms of storys because it will add massively to replay value, and makes the game more challenging, but it can still be rewarding to your casual gamer that doesn't have 40+ hours to devote to following the most difficult path, as he can simply take the game along it's most basic path.
2 wins in a week things are looking up
Essentially, I think this is a difficult issue: After all, it's still being debated whether gaming is a meaningful medium for telling a story.
Here's what seems to be the problem, though it may likely be solved at some point:
1) In a game with a great story, it tends to be linear since that's the easiest way in which to tell a well-developed story in the first place. In which case, players tend to feel it's not as interactive as it should be. After all, no matter what they do, they can't influence the story as much as they'd like.
2) In the case of a game without a story, as in the Animal Forest example, that's similar to what occurs in MMOGs. There's no defined story for it, so it becomes up to the players as to what the game is about. In the present MMOGs, the point of the game is hinted at by their severe slant towards combat-based characters. However, it's rare that you find an interesting story in any of this. It tends to just be about leveling and defeating enemies, but there's no grandiose feel to any of it.
How I see it, you can't go to either extreme. Even MMOGs try to provide stories by introducing GM-created quests for the players to get involved in. Content must be provided in most cases in order to delineate a story.
Here's what seems to be the problem, though it may likely be solved at some point:
1) In a game with a great story, it tends to be linear since that's the easiest way in which to tell a well-developed story in the first place. In which case, players tend to feel it's not as interactive as it should be. After all, no matter what they do, they can't influence the story as much as they'd like.
2) In the case of a game without a story, as in the Animal Forest example, that's similar to what occurs in MMOGs. There's no defined story for it, so it becomes up to the players as to what the game is about. In the present MMOGs, the point of the game is hinted at by their severe slant towards combat-based characters. However, it's rare that you find an interesting story in any of this. It tends to just be about leveling and defeating enemies, but there's no grandiose feel to any of it.
How I see it, you can't go to either extreme. Even MMOGs try to provide stories by introducing GM-created quests for the players to get involved in. Content must be provided in most cases in order to delineate a story.
Video games and movies are both rivals, Videos are an adventure while video games is an adventure which you control. But is the idea of a video games being an interactive movie the wrong way to go?
The problem with an interactive movie is the story is already set out and there is little room for you to manipulate this adventure. Wouldn't it be great if you are put more in control of the game.
How many of you would liked to of given Zelda a little slap when she asked for your help call her crazy go back to Kokiri forest and start up a little farm, when you get to the end of Nugget bridge in Pokemon and you are asked if you would like to join Team rocket how many of you wanted to say yes or in Perfect Dark wouldn't it be interesting if you would kill DR Carol and become an Agent for Datadyne rather than start the mission again.
But is a game where the player is put more in control of the way the game heads an actual possibility? Can developers do something like this?
Well the answer is yes as Nintendo are already working on it in the form of a game called Animal Forest. The idea is that you control a character who has no set adventure and that the life you lead with this person completley depends on the choices you make. The choices you make changes the world which you live in and your world will be completley unique to you and no one will have the same world as you. You can download your character on to a memory card and get him to explore other peoples worlds.
This is a story, an adventure which you create for yourself and gets rid of these linear adventures. Nintendo has declared that one day all games will be done like this.
But are they right are these types of games the future of gaming?
What do you think?
Here's to the future
Dringo
The problem with an interactive movie is the story is already set out and there is little room for you to manipulate this adventure. Wouldn't it be great if you are put more in control of the game.
How many of you would liked to of given Zelda a little slap when she asked for your help call her crazy go back to Kokiri forest and start up a little farm, when you get to the end of Nugget bridge in Pokemon and you are asked if you would like to join Team rocket how many of you wanted to say yes or in Perfect Dark wouldn't it be interesting if you would kill DR Carol and become an Agent for Datadyne rather than start the mission again.
But is a game where the player is put more in control of the way the game heads an actual possibility? Can developers do something like this?
Well the answer is yes as Nintendo are already working on it in the form of a game called Animal Forest. The idea is that you control a character who has no set adventure and that the life you lead with this person completley depends on the choices you make. The choices you make changes the world which you live in and your world will be completley unique to you and no one will have the same world as you. You can download your character on to a memory card and get him to explore other peoples worlds.
This is a story, an adventure which you create for yourself and gets rid of these linear adventures. Nintendo has declared that one day all games will be done like this.
But are they right are these types of games the future of gaming?
What do you think?
Here's to the future
Dringo
Page: