Beyond Two Souls gets a 6.0

NINJA'D

Anyway, the difference to me for how much I enjoyed Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead is that, in the second game, I was never sure what was going to happen next, and the characters actually felt natural to me, as well as there being a real sense of urgency in the more intense sequences, while in the the first, I could figure out who the Origami killer was within around an hour, killing off most of the suspense and mystery, and too many of the quick-time events were just completely unnecessary. It's hard to describe, but Heavy Rain felt too artificial and fell apart around the finale.

 

I'm just gonna skip the rest of the thread and address this because it's important to me

It is not wrong for a game to focus on storytelling, but it should not sacrifice gameplay to do so, because in a game, gameplay is storytelling. It is the most unique and thus most essential aspect of a game, one that is mostly exclusive to it and at the very least its specialty. When people say a game (especially an old one) "had a good story," but when you quiz them they admit that the characters were flat and the setting is kind of dull, what they probably meant is that it immersed them through its interactivity. The story they liked wasn't told or witnessed, it was played.

A game can achieve immersion without being terribly interactive - Indeed, every other form of entertainment gets on with it well enough - but games have the expectation of being interactive, and without that element the medium becomes a hindrance more than an advantage, the controller naught but a funny-looking remote where the buttons don't work right sometimes. The review doesn't surprise me, nor does the verdict, and it's why I didn't buy the games to begin with, but I think it's more than just personal preference. I think it's in the games' nature.

Quantic is trying to do something inherently difficult to enjoy. It's like putting jelly on a hot dog: maybe the first time you'll get a few people to say they like it, but before long it becomes a question of, are you doing it to be different, or do you really think there's potential there? And while I admit to having no first-hand experience, from what I have seen and read it sounds like Quantic would make only passable films, too, if they were in that industry. So a merely passable non-interactive story is having poor interactive elements smooshed into it? Outlook bleak.

And besides that Metal Gear Rising does what Quantic keeps trying to but better-*brick'd*

 

...

 

I don't quite remember how I did, since I played it around the time the game came out.

But...just look at this and tell me it wasn't obvious

Spoiler

HINT: ITS THE GUY WITH THE GUN AND THE SHADOWS ALL AROUND HIM

 

Spoiler

Americans always get the worst boxarts. Still, it's amazing that you weren't swayed when they were in the clock shop, where the owner was apparently killed by the Origami Killer. Not only shouldn't this be possible, but you can also hear the thoughts of Shelby and he was clearly shocked about the murder.

When I first played it, I was certain that the story decided who was the killer based on how you played the game, otherwise it didn't make any sense and there were so many plot points left hanging. Then I found out that it was always the same person and my opinion of the game sank quite a bit.

 

They don't. And more importantly, it's not gonna be much of a game if it has action by the player with no meaningful reaction in the game. Otherwise it's equivalent to a flash game.

I can see what you're trying to say, I believe, but it's not true, gameplay almost never tells or adds to a video game story. Gameplay is the mechanism to activate the story, I mean if gameplay is story, that means any game has a story (and good gameplay a good story, by that logic) because every game has gameplay. So Mario has a good story, or Need for Speed because they have good gameplay? Gameplay helps immerse you into the story, but it doesn't necessarily create a story nor do some games even need stories.

A game is interaction. That's what fundamentally sets it apart from every other form of entertainment. Without it, it's not a game. You can get away with cut scenes and such, but the game has to be a majority of the time interactive to be considered a game. Beyond is very interactive, but again it's not interactive in a meaningful way.

Heavy Rain was plenty interactive. At various points during the game any of the four main characters can die if you don't react properly to deadly events, and your actions affect your character's success and failures. The problem with Beyond is that your actions don't affect the game like that, from what I've read it's a linear experience, which, again, is not a bad thing if the story is good, but from what I've read it's not. If both sides fail for an interactive drama genre, then it's bad. Heavy Rain had the former and most-ish of the latter.

The Metal Gear series has told story through cut scenes and codec talks, not through gameplay. The gameplay is usually old school and revolves around getting from A to B, blowing something up, killing a boss, etc. Generally your objective is to get to the next cut scene. From what I've seen, Metal Gear Rising only differs in that there is a lot more ambient dialogue, but rarely is the story not told in cut scenes, most ambient dialogue is used to tell weaknesses of enemies, the direction to go in, attacks to use and so on. Rising's story was minimal compared to other Metal Gear games because it was focused on the action elements of the gameplay, and not the story telling. I mean that's Platinum's modus operandi.

 

It's also equivalent to those old point and click games, isn't it?

 

No, this isn't true. Back in the day, gameplay was the only source of the story. Indie gamesl ike Limbo give us nothing but setting and gameplay moments to tell the story. Most recently, Rising used its gameplay to create a dissonance and use it to make the main character have a mental break down. Heck, Splosion Man has one cutscene in it that last for five seconds while everything else is learned through gameplay. And in the platformer department, I don't believe the original Crash Bandicoot had any dialogue until the very end.

You're just wrong. Gameplay can be used to tell as much story as a designer is willing to have it to tell.

 

Don't trust any sites that gave Gone Home above an 8 but scored Beyond below a 7

 

I remember all that interaction in Dear Esther......

 

While I don't completely agree with all of your examples, your point is more than valid. You can definitely tell some great stories through gameplay and interaction, it's just that most people decide to either focus almost entirely on the gameplay without much of a story, to split up gameplay and story completely or lastly to sacrifice gameplay for story.

For two great examples of how to tell a great story through interactivity and gameplay, there's Ico and SotC. They have a couple of cutscenes, but for the most part the story is told through the gameplay. Hopefully The Last Guardian will follow in the same suit, but that game is probably going to be a mess when it finally releases.

 

Again, storytelling or gameplay has to be good in that genre, or at least entertaining, creative puzzles. Having both story and gameplay in a game usually makes a game great. You can lack one or the other and still have a good time, but lacking both makes it very likely to be a bad game. Could have good features, but not enough usually to be redeemable. Rule of thumb, not a perfect science.

Did I forget to say 'good' storytelling?

What does smashing crates and running in a jungle tell me anything about the character, story and such in Crash Bandicoot? The plot points that set the context of the story are based in cut scenes, not in the actions of the player, the gameplay is a means to get from one cut scene to another.

The story of Splosion man is a synopsis, it's not a game with a plot, and you don't learn about the scientists who made you or the reason for Splosion Man's abilities or anything that we as players experience. I think the only thing we learn is the name of the lab Big Science, which is written in the setting and not explained through gameplay.

And what story does Limbo tell us? The 'story' of Limbo consists of setting and pre ordained actions, the actual reality of the story is what we find from different sources, the fact the setting is on the edge of hell is known to us by the title of the game, not the gameplay, the fact we know the main character is a boy is told to us in the synopsis as well as his objective for seeking his sister. Almost everything else is about the narrative based around what we perceive as individuals, that's the beauty of Limbo, in that it doesn't have a set story, we are allowed to imagine what's going on.
Like Minecraft's Adventure mode, many people make up stories about this blocky guy waking up in the middle of nowhere. That game is all gameplay, but it's no story apart from the one you perceive from the environment and make yourself in your own mind.

The most basic stories at least consist of a introduction, a conflict and a resolution/result. Limbo, at best fits that mould, but bucks narrative style.

I was gonna lump both these games into Limbo category of story telling, since a lot of what you see isn't explain and up to the player's imagination, but since they set the context of the protagonists goals along with main characters and reason for their actions all through cutscenes, I'll just put it as normal game storytelling.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong, extra wrong with a side of wrong sauce. The most memorable moments to a gamer are the ones where the game appears to be aware of their presence; instances in the story where the gamer feels exactly what the perspective character feels, acknowledgement in-game of something the player is thinking about it, the plot using gaming abstractions to move forward, so on and so forth. When gameplay and story are incongruous, it damages the story's credibility. When they are in sync, it enriches the player's experience.

Gameplay is storytelling, not story all on its own. Though the most satisfying gameplay can be a story in itself, through the many varied experiences of its players, a game must first set out to tell a story. But the first step can be as simple as that wave of relief an RPG player feels as they emerge on the other side of a challenging dungeon, into the warm light of a save point.

Mario does have a story. It's the story of a plumber who saves a kidnapped princess from a giant dinosaur-turtle monster. How successful they are in roping the player into that little mythos varies between games, but not because of differences in the plot or characters; it's the differences in the way environments are laid out, how many tools the player has to explore them, how difficult are the challenges that lie before them and whether they make the player sweat or give them a lukewarm sense of accomplishment.

Super Mario World is heralded as one of the pillars of the platforming genre, and it's more than just running and jumping; there's a little bit of backtracking, some instances where the player must combine the precision and technique they've learned with a little dash of cleverness to discover a new path, there are unlockables which dramatically change the landscape of the stages... The world feels alive, because it responds to the player, it invites them to be a part of it and to affect change in it. It evokes deep emotions from its players, and invests them in seeing it through to the end. And it accomplishes all of this without any masterfully delivered dialogue, any expertly crafted plot, or any sort of narrative hand-holding. Just a brief primer on what you're doing in the world at the beginning, and a little status update after surviving each castle.

No, not every game needs a story, but most of them end up with one. Whether it's the one the developers intended or put forth, or one forged by the players themselves. And the latter tend to be more enjoyable, at least in my experience.

See the examples above. I'm not going to bother elaborating further, because after reading this...

...it's pretty clear I've already wasted more than enough breath for how little you respect the point you're debating.

Tragically qft. Most games only achieve good synergy between the two by accident (See: Pokémon).

 

Nope.

Just nope.

I won't let you say that the narrative in ICO is lesser because it doesn't have text on the screen or handle it all through cutscenes. I just won't have it. There's no relationship in media that was conveyed stronger than Ico and Yorda's. Just because you say it doesn't have a strong narrative, doesn't mean you're right. Learn to analyze the medium and keep opinions about what strong writing is to yourself.

But fine: Crash is a simpleton, his simple gameplay reinforces this until you meet Cortex, Limbo is meant to take place in the world of Limbo, the setting just strengthens the feeling of nothingness to expect from the world, and Splosion Man is wacky and crazy and you get that more from his hyperactive animations within the game than you ever would through a cutscene. There ya go.

You can't say these aren't good examples of writing. They accomplish their goals, so thus it is good. What you can say is you don't like them. That's fine, but there's no scale of quality. It's either they didn't accomplish what they wanted with this character/plot or they did.[DOUBLEPOST=1381359451][/DOUBLEPOST]

No Dark Souls? Brothers? The original Zelda? Come on, we had so much to work with!

 

I'm strapped for examples because I'm locked in Disgaea Mode

Good thing I've got a brother to back me up for occasions like this ;D

 

...

Yes. It. Does.

Spoiler

LOOK AT THAT PHRASE ABOVE THE GAME TITLE

The whole story of Solid Snake being a highly-trained agent of espionage being executed well depends on the player being able to do just that: espionage. This means sneaking around, avoiding enemies, keeping suspicions of your presence non-existent, and hiding in cardboard boxes.

Could you play MGS4 like a shooter? Sure. Are you missing the point of Solid Snake's character? Entirely. He's not meant to be another bald-headed, buff white guy with more muscle than personality (granted there are some sequences where stealth is no longer an option.) He's a tortured man who's job is to be a ghost, and as good as the cutscenes and Codec calls are at conveying this, it's the gameplay of crawling on your belly in a warzone while you're outnumbered and outgunned, using your patience and advantage of stealth, that REALLY sells this.

Try telling me Metal Gear Solid would work as a strong narrative with the story it has if you played the game by punching people with a God Fist or using your own magical hair as a weapon, and then say gameplay has no correlation with story.

Or, just look at the Psycho Mantis fight.

 

That's not a story within the game, that's player response to gameplay experience which is separate from the story.

That's not a story, that's a sequence of events that you played in a Mario game.

You're saying gameplay is storytelling, and in some ways, like I said, I understand. I was playing Battlefield 3 online with a mate, doing Capture the Flag. Both of us on a motorbike, we had taken the flag and I was driving him back as he put down fire against the enemy. Suddenly, in front of us dropped a chopper firing towards us. My mate reached for his RPG, I sped faster towards it and as I hopped a ramp, he fired and boom, chopper destroyed mid air. That's an epic story in a game to me, an experience no one else can have. This type of thing is called emergent storytelling, where the gameplay events stack in a way to create a unique story for you. Games like XCOM: Enemy Unknown have this compared to an actual proper narrative, though one still lightly exists. But this style of story is not created by the developers, it's one created in the minds and experiences of the player, where it can't be replicated nor designed in such a way. Games try to do this with set pieces like in CoD or Unchartered, a structured event to be epic for the player to experience, basically, like being in a big budget film and are such very cinematic.

I demand improvement from the games industry in their storytelling and can't just accept that any storytelling is good enough.

Wha? It does have text on the screen and cut scenes, all which give context of the gameplay elements and world you're in. What everyone is ignoring is my point, that the actual gameplay does not create or reveal the story. If you stripped ICO of all its cut scenes and played it for the first time, you would be left with no context at all for why you're there, how you met this girl, where this shadow creates come from and the whole narrative of the game. The games people are putting forward are all games where the story elements are driven by cut scenes, and not by gameplay. Someone at least address that point.

What does this have to do with a good story? A good setting doesn't mean anything without context.
'I went to a lovely field, with beautiful grass, wild flowers bound the plain, roaming sheep by the fences all soaked in sun filled rays.' That's great and all, but what happened there?

There is good writing and there is bad writing. There are **** novel stories as there are **** game stories. Just because you can tell a protagonist from an antagonist doesn't make it a good story just because you know that. That's not a story, that's a concept. Just because a person can grin and jump around does not make them a well developed character. That's a trait, not developed character. Good stories have good and well developed plots, characters, events, dialogue and loads more.
By your definition every piece of fiction is good writing because the reader can understand it, which every English Literature and Creative Writing teacher will tell you is utterly wrong. If everything was good writing, we'd actually have loads of great game stories, but we don't, we have some hits and a lot of misses and a lot of games that repeat other games.

What does boxart help prove your point that gameplay affects storytelling? Boxart can tell you about a game, sure, but it's not gameplay.

You're now talking about the themes of the game which the story has created and the gameplay has emphasised, which is true, the themes of espionage is shown off by him being able to crawl to avoid detection. Themes fuel a story but they don't make it, it's a combination for a lot more for that to work, which Metal Gear does but in cut scenes and codec messages.

Ah now, you bring up an interesting point, is the story created first and then the gameplay or the gameplay is created and a story made to explain it.

 

You're choosing to view it that way. That does not make you right, nor your stance more valid. A story is a form of art, and art is broadly defined as something which evokes a response from its observer. In the case of a game, this takes on a co-operative element - where the writers and designers do some of the work and the players contribute the rest. They experience both what the developer has set forth for them to experience, and what they derive from the framework of the game and dictate with their own actions. The unique element of a game is the ability for its player to generate further experiences for themselves and others, all of which may inspire or discourage them, elicit joy, sadness, rage, excitement, surprise, fear... and, moreover, all of which form a persistent chain of events in the player's mind. You're seeing story as pure plot, something with a singular architect and a singular purpose - but that's exceptionally limited, and in many cases downright untrue. Not to mention, a story that only had plot would be rather boring. "What happened next" cannot sustain a good story by itself. A race is not its checkpoints; it is the racers reaching them that defines them, gives them purpose. Later chapters mean nothing until the reader reads that far. Thusly does the player uncover the story by playing the game. Until then, plot is just a distant flagstaff.

You are deliberately avoiding the point I'm trying to make, that all of these things together have the same effect on the player of the game as the goings-on of any other form of less interactive media. They're pieces building up to the conclusion. Together they become more than the sum of their parts. They equal, roughly, the experience in any other medium of having a story dictated to its observers: one of discovery, of absorbing a potent message or coming to a personal realization, of experiencing strong emotions and acting on them in a meaningful way. A game may inspire a painter to paint, an engineer to build, a writer to write, or a martial artist to train. If they had not done these things, they would not have risen to prominence.

You're getting part of what I'm saying, but you're not getting the whole thing. Gaming abstractions can be used to tell a story, if utilized correctly, and the players can be guided to certain experiences or emotions - in equal measure as they are given the freedom to dictate these things on their own. Both are forms of the unique storytelling strength that games display. For a brilliant example of the former, I'd advise you to take a look at the first link in that batch I posted a while back.

Then stop behaving as if the highest and most venerable goal is to imitate another medium. Let games be games.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying you're wrong and providing examples upon examples upon carefully constructed persuasive argument. Are you ignoring me?

All right, now you're just being crude. Of course you can't take a part of something away; it was created to function optimally as it is presented. That's like saying draining the color out of the Mona Lisa proves that the only reason it's a popular painting is because it's not black and white. It's like a form of "correlation equals causation:" in the absence of a component part, if the machine ceases to function properly, the part was the most important part. There are so many factors that go unaccounted for. Whether you choose to acknowledge it does not change the fact that gameplay plays an equal part in the telling of the tale to the hands-off content, and I wager if you removed that from Ico, the story would suffer far more.

And to use the other example we've been kicking around: Without the "tactical espionage action" MGS is so eager to advertise on its box art, the player would not be able to identify with Snake at all. The sneakery and subterfuge is a chance to dig into the mindset that the player character inhabits, to go through the motions of traversing dangerous facilities, avoiding detection, escaping danger through the shadows and eliminating problem targets. One of the things it does for the plot of the original MGS is to provide a counterpoint against Snake's reluctance to take part in the bloodshed; while he shows a disdain for war and murder, as a part of the gameplay one is expected to kill for a cause, and on some level to enjoy the role of the soldier. Furthermore, the player has the option to eschew violence for the most part or freely gun down anyone they see in the halls, which would ultimately alter their perception of Snake's character. The cutscenes provide the context

You seem to operate under the assumption that the opposite does not hold true.

You are repeatedly strawmanning the argument and it's getting on my nerves. You took second in Master Debater, act like it.

I don't know how you got that, but clearly there's been a misunderstanding. Typically the goal of a game is not simply to be playable; if it's being sold on store shelves or on an online market, typically it is setting out to achieve a certain sales goal, appeal to a certain audience - and most importantly, in the realm of storytelling, deliver a certain message or elicit certain responses from its players. Its goals are more nuanced, the conditions for success or quality more complicated, thus a book being legible is not equivalent. Trying to compare them is only twisting the point you're arguing against to make it easier to deconstruct.

You say it's a combination of elements, then immediately imply that it is done solely or primarily through one of those elements. From here I could either say that you clearly don't believe that or understand your own point, or that you misrepresented it and I still disagree with the notion that it all rests on the presentation of the plot, for above stated reasons.

Is the rest of this not compelling to you? Please tell me now if you're just screwing around so I can get on with my life.

 

hey isn't that the chick from the last of us

 

No.