Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
The best example of this is probably the CSI games. In those, you don't really have a plotline to follow as such, you more have a collection of clues and your task, more than anything else, is to find all the clues and put them together. The point of those games is to know everything there is to know, because eventually, that'll tell you the identity of the murderer, and usually his motivation and methodology, as well.
|
Do you need a "complete" experience?
I'm a sucker for usless information. I love easter egg drops in movies and videogames, and in general, am always up for a "complete" expearince. BUT, and this is a big BUT, i don't want all that stuff to clutter up a game needlessly.
Take games like Mass Effect. (I'm currently playing it. I was late to the party...) LOTS of needless information in the Codex, lots of stuff to read outside of the game, comics, and 2 novels i think. NONE of it nessessiry to enjoy the game. You can play either game, from start to finish, without ever cracking open the codex, and you'll do just fine, understand what's happening just fine. The extra stuff is just extra, and adds to *my* enjoyment, but YMMV.
And thats who IMO is should be. On the side so to speak. There if you want to endulge, but not a requirment to get enjoyment out of a game.
@KingSnake - Triumph Server
@PrinceSnake
My common sense is tingling... ~ Deadpool
If you can't learn to do something well... learn to enjoy doing it poorly...
This is the last time I'll respond to this line.
Streets of Rage is also 20 years old, if not more. Beat-em-ups these days have a solid, if vague storyline. Shank, for instance, is nothing more than a Grindhouse style violent slaughterfest focusing on a guy shanking people in a 2D side-scroller, yet that has enough of a story to make for a Hollywood blockbuster worthy of Machete. I understand that's not saying much, but story is very much there. Hell, look at Capcom's all Aliens vs. Predator arcade and you'll notice that has enough story to make up a movie, too, and that's also about 20 years old. |
Way to miss my point. It's not that a beat'em'up can't have a story: It's that the game mechanis of a beat'em'up is fundamentally different from COH. (in controls, timing, etc.)
The mission objective gives me enough information to complete a task. That's not what I'm talking about. Quite a few of the new missions don't give me enough information to understand what's happening, however, beyond the very immediate next objective. However, I can't follow the story without background information which the story doesn't provide. |
Easy example: When Praetorian Penelope Yin calls me, I see a picture of Metronome. Erm... Who the hell is Metronome? How do I know what he looks like? Have I met him before? Well... No, actually. Metronome is part of a Loyalist Responsibility arc where his nature is revealed, and Penelope Yin is part of a Resistance Warden arc. What's more, having run the Responsibility arc that had Metronome in it, I understood that he has no physical bodie and instead jumps between the different clockwork, therefore there there wouldn't be a picture of him to see, unless I saw a picture of a random Clockwork. |
And even if not, Penny i A) Psychic and B) Insane. And she's sending you this telepathically.
There isn't "one story" because a story assumes a beginning, a linear middle and an end. |
Take history, there are millions of stories, but there i also a "a" story of history (however imperfectly we can recreate it) that is, the sum total of human experience. "Was eigentlich gewesen Ist."
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Long, composite reply coming. Buckle up, folks!
For me, at least, there are several things about Bloodlines that make it great. To begin with, it's got wonderful atmosphere. The voice acting is great with few exceptions, and the setting is very gritty and immersive (the graphics even still hold up pretty well). In addition, it has wonderful roleplaying options. I can try to interact with people by persuasion, intimidation or seduction, and how I treat people has an actual effect on things. There are actual choices to be made, and missions I can ignore or miss without ruining the game. It's amazingly deep. Another thing I like is no combat levels. I've never liked that, skill systems like Bloodlines has are much more realistic.
Redemption had some wonderful points to it too, but it wasn't as engaging to me because I couldn't make my OWN character, and it became all about combat (and rather repetetive combat, at that). |
But that's neither here nor there.
I guess I just liked Redemptions' Cristoff too damn much to dislike the game. I LOVED his voice actor, and the guy - like War - was pretty much a stoic figure, and pretty powerful by the end. Love how a great sword becomes twice as strong when it becomes ancient Bloodlines, by comparison, didn't really sit well with me, and I will admit that this was because of graphics and gameplay, and probably not a little because of mood. Never was a fan of "realistic" settings replete with intrigue and politics. As it ought to be clear so far, my preferences lie in the more pure ("pure" in the sense of "simple" and "uncomplicated") concepts.
In any case, how much info is present in a game never matters as much to me as how interesting the information is.
|
When I read a book or watch a movie, I want all the info the writer or screenwriter wants to give me.
|
While how much information is too much can be relative, I think we can define a pretty hard line based on how much the author wanted to give out. If an author is prodigous and stuffs his work with tons and tons of lore, such as the makers of Baldur's Gate did, then I can't really complain. It's all down to personal preference. However, when an author has given out only so much and then people start writing expanded universe books and spinning elaborate theories, that's where I start to grumble. And the real problem with that is that this tends to happen OFFICIALLY. You have a good book, movie or game that does so well a sequel is greenlit. However, this sequel then features FAR more plot analyses and far more extraneous info to appease the fans and sell well, effectively turning it into a different work altogether.
I keep talking about Soul Reaver, but just look at the shift in narrative from Soul Reaver to Soul Reaver 2. In the original, there was almost no plot. Raziel is wronged, and he must kill his six (was it?) brothers and then Kain and... That's pretty much it. There's a Sarafan tomb along the way, too, but that's literally the entirety of the plot. It hints at more, but doesn't say more. It's an old game from an old age where story wasn't a big thing. Then Soul Reaver 2 opens with backstory, conversation and infodump, and there's so much background on the world my head spins. Now, that's not complain about Soul Reaver having too much story - it has just the right amount - but it's to describe how a franchise's plot tends to balloon over the span of its sequels. Hell, look at Metal Gear!
Of course, I wouldn't support the reverse, either - that being a game's plot becoming dumber and less interesting in its sequels. For instance, Dino Crisis was a derivative but good-natured Resident Evil clone with a cliched but cute plot about a research station run over with dinosaurs. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, either. Then Dino Crisis 2 turned the game into challenge shooter counting your combos and scoring you at the end of each level, and I was not able to sense plot anywhere in there. While I may grumble at plots getting thicker, that, at least, is inoffensive. But when plots drop out of games between releases, that actually insults my intelligence, and THAT I could never support. I'd sooner have too much than too little.
I'm a sucker for useless information. I love easter egg drops in movies and videogames, and in general, am always up for a "complete" experience. BUT, and this is a big BUT, I don't want all that stuff to clutter up a game needlessly.
And that's who IMO is should be. On the side so to speak. There if you want to indulge, but not a requirement to get enjoyment out of a game. |
I think Mass Effect's Codex is a very good idea. It collects all of your extra info there if you really cared about it, but it doesn't actually paste the info on your screen before it saves it. If I get a codex entry, my Codex lights up to tell me I have an entry, but it doesn't pop up with the entry in my face. And, to boot, most of those entries had something to do with things in the actual game, at least.
I guess it's not so much extra info that I mind as the lack of segregation between that extra info and the main plotline I'm currently following.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I love complex byzantine plots, crisscrossing agendas, unexpected turns of the narrative. I'm way too used to being able to predict where a story goes from pretty much the opening narration, and so I love whenevr a story manages to surprise me (even if in just some minor way) and that chance tends to increase with the complexity of the plot.
And for the record, Planescape: Torment is my favourite CRPG (even if BG2 is probably technically better) and Planescape my favourite setting, for these reasons precisely :P
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."