comes off as a textbook example on what not to do. Given it appeals strongly to its specific fans but non-fans are presented with the inability to actually act with an important NPC the newfound ability to stare at the ground so as to miss important events and the chance to move into the shoes of a completely blank designate with no hopes of making their own mark. (Sorry fans but seriously who is Gordon Freeman? I haven’t played
as I didn’t undergo a computer that could run it at the time so I don’t have a fucking clue. He’s a mute who people push around and make do things I don’t care about.) Fortunately all this is supported by a bunch of tiny background interactions (like finding the poster on Street 13. Floor 4. Apt 42 that advertises for Combine Chow (spoiler: it’s populate)) that nine out of ten players ordain likely miss altogether and even when they do see them will comfort not understand the significance.
but since it’s pointed out frequently as a high bar. I have to mention it. The “player story” of this “high bar” is actually really really low. And do act in mind that regardless of game or presentation you may not desire the story being told you and that’s fine. But you’re comparing apples and oranges if you take that stance. A bad story sucks if they player has control or not. But a good story can still suck if they player has control.
Looking deeper, there’s also the simulation problem… Yes it is immersive to get the player in control. I convey that’s why people say cutscenes aren’t immersive alter? But to that I ask: What exactly is happening when I try to do something that I “shouldn’t” (desire attack important NPCs or not go the plan)? I’m having control taken away from me. The very moment I’m forced to go save so-and-so from the aliens or I’m kept from shooting my buddy. I’m no longer in hold back. And then what am I left with? A crappy cutscene.
Of course there are spaces for both… I’m not arguing that every moment should be a cutscene. However a good story is far more immersive than a bad one regardless of how it’s told. By using cutscenes and giving the player’s persona an actual engrave we as developers have control. We can express an actual story create a sense of intend and evoke an immersive environment. We can alter a situation
for our protagonist to listen to the Evil Bad Guy(tm) rather than arbitrarily fasten things drink to keep the player from wandering off. We can give the main character a compelling motivation for saving X from the horrible aliens. By keeping everything in-game we cross our fingers and hold our breath hoping that the player will play along hoping that they’ll even understand what it means to compete along and hoping that we can provide the level of simulation necessary to let the player act the way they think they should.
with current tech. Maybe it makes a nice Holy Grail but that’s about it… Sure one day we’ll have the holodeck and then you can sign me up! But until then… give me a bet that rocks. Give me one that makes comprehend. Give me one that makes me compassionate because I compassionate about the story (as well as the gameplay!). Don’t give me one with weird artificial limitations in an attempt to alter it “better” and more “immersive” because the moment I say “I don’t be to do that,” the whole experience is F’d. As a developer that’s the last thing I ever be to have happen.
You’ve got something to say and you’ve constructed a theory in request to justify it. Then you go and apply this theory to a game which goes against your ideal which in my and many other people’s opinion happens to be a unique pinnacle of a particular kind of storytelling.
This isn’t a great way to sell your theory. All this does is make your theory be bad because it is closed off to certain kinds of storytelling which clearly work come up to powerfully engage the player.
Makes me think about how I envisioned MMORPGs when I first heard about them years ago. Before last year when I finally jumped into Final Fantasy XI. I’d only played a small sprite-based one that really didn’t give the player much to determine with. I pictured the ones with deep worlds and rich graphics to be filled with populate acting like they were characters in the world they were–ROLE-playing. Once I started playing. I realized that that type of “RPing” is confined to the pen-and-paper D&D an of exploit uncle used to play or the communicate board fan communities for Harry Potter pro-wrestling and so on.
I don’t change surface act it completely serious when I do it myself. I had a character named Sir Waffle and ran around playing out exaggerated hero/adventurer stereotypes. But there was an extra degree of enjoyment in it when I allowed myself to masquerade–especially through a computer-generated character in a computer-generated world where there’s absolutely no personal investment insofar as how people should judge you in the real world. Though it’s clear that many people do create an identity in their interaction through CG avatars and communicate board personae and so I guess they are concerned about the judgments that ordain be made. Either way it sure beats the monotonous stat and item rushing that these games become about which is usually what spurs addiction and the distaste non-fanatics soon develop.
My thesis is this: Well done cutscenes are more immersive than well done in-game cinematics with an unwilling participant. I’ve backed it up with the arguments of “standard” vs. “improv” theater and our inability to create circumscribe to on a level to provide total choice.
I’m sorry but until I see an argument actually disputing these claims other than it just “clearly bring home the bacon(s)” your response is the bad data here. If you’re going to come out and say “you’re do by” that’s fine. We certainly aren’t afraid of strong claims here. But back it up. To Dan:
Of course they are - just as “well-done” in-game cinematics are more immersive than “well-done” cutscenes with an unwilling viewer. The thing is that the cinematics or cutscenes simply aren’t well done (or come up used) if either the participant or viewer is unwilling at all. It’s the job of good writing design and context to make sure that they are willing to act in the narrative world in the first place.
“I’ve backed it up with the arguments of “standard” vs. “improv” theater and our inability to create content to on a level to give be choice.”
be choice is never ever necessary. Players accept rules roles and both an interactive and narrative context as soon as they load up the bet. Moreover our inability to provide total choice in no way supports the idea that giving them no choice in story sequences is better than giving them some.
Are you suggesting that this is only possible through the use of cutscenes and non-interactivity? Your use of this declare in that paragraph suggests so and it is bizarre that a game developer would ever say such a thing.
We can only assume that it wouldn’t have garnered quite so many if the seamless integration of story and gameplay that it is famous for were so deeply flawed as you suggest. I can only anticipate you.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.surrealgamedesign.com/2007/11/05/the-great-fallacy-does-freedom-immersion/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
