A "Cracked" Article That I Actually Really Liked

Well, in the case of Dark Souls, it's not so much that I meant a direct, written story, but rather a story that is told implicitly by the game's world and what fills it, if that makes sense?

This is personal opinion (of course) but I played Heavy Rain and found it lackluster for the same reasons that I wouldn't dare waste a dollar on BEYOND: Two Souls. It's an interactive story with no actual gameplay, which is ok, but it's form of interactive storytelling is by having tedious QTE's (shaving your face, shaking a carton of orange juice, manually climbing up a hill of dirt) rather than simply focusing on doing what interactive storytelling does well: having the player use things like observation and memory skills to make effective decisions, especially in constrained time periods, which is what I feel The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us both do well. I mean, a few of these non-essential QTE's are fine, but it plagued the majority of the game, when I just wish the game would either implement an actual system of gameplay mechanics (beyond walking, talking, and looking at/picking up stuff), or skip the QTE's altogether, if that makes sense? Please do feel free to enjoy the game still, I just like discussing stuff like this.

Totally agree with The Last of Us being a strong combination of gameplay and storytelling.

While I liked what Shattered Memories tried to do (changing the appearances of characters depending on player decisions, for instance), things like a literal psychological profiler really fucked up the implicit storytelling that the first 3 games were much better at. It destroys subtlety when you have a character literally saying "This is what's wrong with you."

 

For Heavy Rain I think it worked though. The system in place worked very much like a point and click game where you observe the environment, explore it, gather clues or just interact with normal items and ask questions of people. Just, it tried to mould it around the Playstation controls, much like the Telltale games.
Also, there are a number of times memory is required in Heavy Rain though, one I remember really well was when Ethan's son had been kidnapped and a few scenes later he was at the police station, being asked what his son was wearing, what time he went missing, stuff like that. I was like 'My son could be dead because I forgot what he was wearing! Damn it, shiit!' it was very much a real situation that happens if people go missing and you report about it, and it made you feel terrible for being a crappy father because of it.
Also, I have no problem with QTEs if used right. They're there to try and make the cinematic experiences that you can't do in game feel interactive and controlled by you. God of War felt like it did them well. It could do with improvements and a more complex system that tests the users reflexes, sure, but if it works i'm not too bothered.

 

While it does have downsides it worked within the context of that particular story. Beats needlessly failing to recapture SH2 for the nth time.

 

I take issue with a couple of these. Story-breaking minigames are much needed in certain genres to break up the monotony a little bit. Incorporation of such elements into RPGs is a blessing: Just look at Super Mario RPG for an excellent example. If they're poorly executed then sure, they're just an unwelcome hassle (See most of W101's flying sections), but they're a tool in the toolbox. The idea of a "serious story" is a little silly to me as well, and the presentation in that article comes off as pretentious; I'm not opposed to games like Papers Please, but they can exist alongside games like Catherine. Games should be able to reach the player emotionally but that doesn't mean that every game has to drag them through the muck of an ultra-dense, depressing narrative, like a cancer story or something. I wouldn't expect that of books, movies, or music either. There are many ways to prove a point, and you'll reach a lot more people with your message if you keep them all in mind. That point about racial representation, while pretty true, was represented weirdly? Like, he talks about Franklin being a bad black role model and then shows a scene where he doesn't talk. Wat.

Game mechanics that remind you it's a game? Uh, it's a game. Removing HUD and other gameplay elements for the sake of "immersion" usually just hurts it. No health bar? You know less about your character's physical well-being than you would about yourself if you were actually there. No map? You get hopelessly lost on the way to an objective, in a way that draws your eye to the weird little discrepancies of the world and maybe even glitches off the beaten path. Sometimes you need a visual representation of damage to form a more effective strategy; the games he mentioned where you just pump bullets into a thing until it dies might actually be a mote more intelligent if you could see how long 'til those things died; you'd know exactly how much ammo it costs, whether you can afford it, how long you need to keep the pressure on, whether your current vantage will be safe until it's dead or if you need to move, etc. HUD doesn't hurt a game by design; when well-done, it forms the necessary shortcuts for you to forget you're not the character onscreen and focus on the fun part. Not only that, there are many ways to make these displays blend in perfectly with the setting: In Armored Core you expect your screen to be full of data because you're piloting an enormous electronic behemoth, and I'm told Dead Space has its health bar strapped onto the player character's back. Though I will say I agree that Oculus Rift is not the future of video games, I've been playing that at Disney Quest for years and that shit gives me headaches.

Most of the others I agree with though, grudgingly or not. I could try and defend the variety of platforms, but it'd be flimsy; if all we had was PC and then one mega-console (maybe a hand-held to go with it) I'd be happy. The point on moral choices is absolutely true, I felt more pressured by the choices in Saints Row 3 than in most of the Mass Effect series (the one exception being anything to do with the Genophage, though the fact that they label the choices with arbitrary "good" and "bad" points kinda kills that). AI is in serious need of an overhaul in every genre, I'd gladly see graphics retrograded by several console generations if that was the sacrifice necessary to have smarter enemies. Oh yeah, and pay to play needs to die.

Look, I know you don't see it in the way you type, but this whole thing comes off as severely condescending every time you talk about it. It doesn't matter that you throw in a couple compliments at the end, your language is still snobby and you really give the impression you don't know what you're talking about to boot.

"Storytelling" is not "The game tells you a story," despite its name. If we were to think of everything so literally, a "game" itself would be quite misleading in name these days. Storytelling is the way a world unfolds before an observer. In the world of gaming, this process is cooperative: The developer creates a framework which the player explores and tweaks at their own pace. The Souls series embraces this in a minimalistic fashion; it propels you forward using only basic directives, which it knows you will largely follow unquestioned because of its nature, and leaves your quest as uninterrupted by pointless drivel and backstory as possible. A deeper history is there for those who choose to pursue it, and all of the events of the game transform in meaning depending on how well you do in the game, how many places and people you get to know, and how deeply you choose to immerse yourself in the game. You connect by choice; you can either be a detached vagabond or see many other peoples' stories through to conclusion, if you wish. They have to do with you if you make them your business. It leaves room for interpretation; if that disqualifies something from being a "real" story, then we're crossing off a lot more than just games.

 

The idea that we need these serious stories for any reason than variety is, quite frankly, juvenile. It's the attitude that led to stuff like Shadow the Hedgehog or Deadlight. You don't need a dark depressing serious story to get invested in characters, to learn valuable lessons, to be immersed, or whatever. In fact most stories that are less concerned with being gritty and serious work on a much stronger level. They KNOW their heavy hitting stuff will hit hard, so they don't bother trying to make EVERY moment show you how dark and bleak things are. Because that's more realisitc. Life is full of variety, and when things are less serious, we tend to see a more full spectrum of humanity.

Immersion is one of the most overhyped things in gaming. And the fact that people think there's a secret recipe to immersion is just kinda ridiculous. When you start referring to your player character as 'you' not Shepard, or Mario, or Ezio, or Sonic, or Master Chief, you're immersed. If you look at a screen and see a health bar and think "welp, there goes my immersion" you mgiht as well be saying the same thing about he character being amde of polygons, having voice actors, beign able to pause, respawning if you die and all of the mnay, many other unavoidable video game things

There isn't really a sliding scale of graphics to AI though, the reason we don't have better AI is because making good AI is HARD. You have to preempt whatever you think the player might do, and make sure none of those contradict other commands you haev for the AI in different contexts. The more complex you make the AI, the more likely it is to blow up in your face in some unforeseen way
I actually felt Mass Effect 3 did a good job of remedying that problem. There were negative outcomes to what were described as good decisions, and positive ones for what was described as renegade. It's the only way you'll be saving Kelly Chambers, for one thing

 

I know, but it also takes up CPU to run more complex algorithms, pathfinding, and other stuff that fucks with framerate. Anyway, I also don't think it's a matter of making things more complicated, just of being cleverer with simpler solutions. I can't believe NO ONE in the world is willing to try it.

I couldn't weigh in on that, never played ME3.

 

Ok, I accept it's a real story in the most basic sense, but then I have to say it's a bad story. Dialogue gets the job done but is clichéd, there are no clear paths as to what you are doing. where you are going or why for a great deal of the time.
Like I said, there are stories in the world, but they're not told, their discovered and constructed by the player. Throwing an ancient magical castle, a corrupted king, a horde of demons that inhabit it and a few item descriptions that connect the lot isn't telling a story to the player. That's lore at best, it's setting the scene for the narrative, giving context to the world you're in. Except the scripted narrative never feeds off of it, like you said it's minimal, so the construct of the player is the aim, it's feeding the player their own story instead of one created by the developers.
I mean, I can't even find a credit for any writer to the game, which means the likelihood the dev and the heads of the departments came together to create the world and its story, is high. As such, I can't see this as a storytelling game because it lacks anything more than the basics. It's an action fantasy RPG game primarily and little more. But it doesn't need a good story, the fact it has a fairly 'bad' story is what helps it, adds to the players disregard of it if they want, placing their story above the simple one constructed, placing their achievements and growth. The open world that reveals itself to you, shows you enemies to defeat, names to cross off lists, weapons to upgrade and armour to wear, that's what people remember from Dark Souls more than anything, their time with it in its world. I don't see that as a bad thing? I've shat on Dark Souls, I admit, I don't like it, but I know it's a good game in many respects, design, enemies, environment, atmosphere, sound, and more. It's not perfect though, the story is one such matter in that it lacks, but it does so for a reason, makes it better than the alternative.

 

Trying to lul the Old One that ****ed your world back to sleep. Or whatever.

To the six five archenstone-sealed places where its minions await.

Well, feel free to give up. The first PNJ you met certainly did. Can' t you see you' re just a pawn in their game ? Doomed if you do, doomed if you don' t. Not that the human condition was any different before that mess happened, yay nihilism.

You sure you played that game ? It might not be much but it beats Tetris hands down.

 

I did, gave up three times now, never quite understood what was going till I watched a full play of it and one of the players was explaining to the other one what was going on. Only reason I think I know what the story's about, but I still don't get it

Sure, you're a puppet to fate, but then you can become Lord of Fire or of Darkness? Why are you going after Gwyn and killing everything around you to get to him for this Old One? What's with this tiny contained land holding all this **** together?
I don't think any of that, I'm just like 'Alright, go around beat **** up, then heal at shrine, go out again, this time pushing a bit further and looking for a shrine, defeat bosses, explore for equipment'. Oh and 'YOU DIED' appears on my screen, shredding my enjoyment and increasing my insanity rapidly. It's not like I'm thinking 'I am on ye olde adventure, seeking thy souls of many demons who I must slay, now I must go to the Scaleless one and defeat it, for I am the knight that shall save this world!'. It's a set dressing story.

 

The fact that you' re even trying to is quite ironic.

Why not ?

Dunno. What' s with this tiny Earth holding all this **** together ?

Then we' re in the same boat. Welcome to life. I hope you enjoy it anyway. I do.

 

That's the point. It's the point of the narrative. It gives you only the bare necessities and lets you decide your own involvement from there on in. If you truly want a good story, you can find it; and you can find that all of your actions have clear and purposeful direction. There is a clear path, I know because I've seen it.

It's a cooperative effort. The two are not separate enough that you can say it has one and not the other. That is the point of the narrative that was the intent in its design how many times do I have to say it why do you think you know better than a WRITER and ASPIRING GAME DESIGNER who has played it ABOUT TEN TIMES LONGER THAN YOU HAVE this is the MOST FRUSTRATING THING OF MY LIFE

What you're calling storytelling is actually better described as writing, which is made up of plot, narrative structure, setting, character design, and in the case of games can also include level design, set design, so on and so forth. Anything that serves the purpose of exploring the world. You don't get to decide it's not what it is just because it's not up to snuff in your book. It was written. It is told, whether by the player or the designer. It is a story. If it's not your kind of story, just say that instead. It's much easier.

Most games don't have writing credits because they don't have dedicated writers, but that doesn't mean the writing is bad or nonexistent. Also you really need to quit with the back-handed compliments, it's disingenuous and rude. The story was designed that way on purpose by the director. He read a lot of fantasy books as a kid, but didn't speak perfect English, so he was always missing the complete picture and had to fill it in using his own imagination. He endeavored to create such an experience from the ground up with Dark Souls. Just because it's not conclusive does not mean it's not concrete, otherwise we can't rightfully call Inception a good story 'cause it doesn't tell you what happens at the end. There are events to grab onto, they inform your place in the world and the reasons for what you are and what you do. They're not less there for the fact that they're not handed to you on a silver platter.

We were talking about Dark Souls, not Demon's Souls. But this is all still technically correct, save for a few noun swaps.

 

Oh, my bad. I haven' t played the sequels yet.

 

In a few words: Same but better

 

I'd rather not write and waste time with my explanations, they'd probably be repeating anyway which i'm trying to avoid.

So here's all i've learnt through this:

When I compliment something, it's rude and fake.
Bad quality is an opinion.
Dark Souls has no faults, especially in its story.
I'm constantly uniformed about my own opinion.

 

You mean like I've had to do half a dozen times? Fancy that.

When you say "It's ok that this is bad?" Fuck yeah that's rude and fake. Don't try to dress it up like you're being the nice guy.

You don't get to say that when you couldn't even prove the premises on which you were arguing. Everything you said was an opinion passed off as a fact, and I'm sick of you trying to tell people about a game you couldn't get through while I sit here saying "IT'S NOT LIKE THAT I SWEAR" like I should have something to prove.

It has plenty of faults, but the ones you talk about are not actual faults and you make a poor show of defending them.

An opinion can be informed, after all.

 

What you could have learned through this:

You may have trouble truly complimenting things.
Quality is subjective and relative to each viewer's experience.
Faults in story are not faults in the method of telling the story.
You sometimes form opinions based on insufficient information or offer opinions despite such.

 

I already brought up the underlined parts being present in the game lol. Heavy Rain does some cool stuff with the investigative scenarios, which is why Nahman Jayden was the most interesting character to play as for the story to me...though then the writing mucks it all up anyway, but that's beside the point for this subject.

The thing is, for me at least, the QTE's in Heavy Rain that you think were making it a "cinematic experience" to me just didn't belong in the story at all, at least not in an interactive manner. Why does the conclusion of a murder thriller story stop itself just because I have to manually set plates on a fucking dinner table? They could easily have just made stuff like that an uninteractive cut scene; the way it is now feels so awkward, like I'm supposed to simply be watching this little event happen, but for whatever reason being forced to set it into motion. Sure, they try to make the cinematic experiences that you can't do in game feel interactive and controlled by you, but they come off as completely unnecessary and uninteresting (again, at least for myself.) And I actually do find God of War to be better at the QTE job as well: you feel adrenaline having to mash a button, just as you would (though thousand times more) ripping off a dude's head. Having the player interact with the scene there actually enhances that experience, rather than potentially detract from it.